Monotherapy treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy: congenital malformation outcomes in the child.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal exposure to certain anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is associated with an increased risk of major congenital malformations (MCM). The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking ASMs throughout pregnancy and, therefore, information on the potential risks associated with ASM treatment is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to ASMs on the prevalence of MCM in the child. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update of this review, we searched the following databases on 17 February 2022: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to February 16, 2022), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), and ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries, randomised controlled trials and epidemiological studies using routine health record data. Participants were women with epilepsy taking ASMs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and untreated women with epilepsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Eight authors completed data extraction and/or risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of an MCM. Secondary outcomes included specific types of MCM. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: From 12,296 abstracts, we reviewed 283 full-text publications which identified 49 studies with 128 publications between them. Data from ASM-exposed pregnancies were more numerous for prospective cohort studies (n = 17,963), than data currently available for epidemiological health record studies (n = 7913). The MCM risk for children of women without epilepsy was 2.1% (95% CI 1.5 to 3.0) in cohort studies and 3.3% (95% CI 1.5 to 7.1) in health record studies. The known risk associated with sodium valproate exposure was clear across comparisons with a pooled prevalence of 9.8% (95% CI 8.1 to 11.9) from cohort data and 9.7% (95% CI 7.1 to 13.4) from routine health record studies. This was elevated across almost all comparisons to other monotherapy ASMs, with the absolute risk differences ranging from 5% to 9%. Multiple studies found that the MCM risk is dose-dependent. Children exposed to carbamazepine had an increased MCM prevalence in both cohort studies (4.7%, 95% CI 3.7 to 5.9) and routine health record studies (4.0%, 95% CI 2.9 to 5.4) which was significantly higher than that for the children born to women without epilepsy for both cohort (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.59) and routine health record studies (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.64); with similar significant results in comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy for both cohort studies (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.96) and routine health record studies (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.83). For phenobarbital exposure, the prevalence was 6.3% (95% CI 4.8 to 8.3) and 8.8% (95% CI 0.0 to 9277.0) from cohort and routine health record data, respectively. This increased risk was significant in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy (RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.84 to 5.65) and those born to women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.83) in cohort studies; data from routine health record studies was limited. For phenytoin exposure, the prevalence of MCM was elevated for cohort study data (5.4%, 95% CI 3.6 to 8.1) and routine health record data (6.8%, 95% CI 0.1 to 701.2). The prevalence of MCM was higher for phenytoin-exposed children in comparison to children of women without epilepsy (RR 3.81, 95% CI 1.91 to 7.57) and the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 2.01. 95% CI 1.29 to 3.12); there were no data from routine health record studies. Pooled data from cohort studies indicated a significantly increased MCM risk for children exposed to lamotrigine in comparison to children born to women without epilepsy (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.39); with a risk difference (RD) indicating a 1% increased risk of MCM (RD 0.01. 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). This was not replicated in the comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63), which contained the largest group of lamotrigine-exposed children (> 2700). Further, a non-significant difference was also found both in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.64) and children born to women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28) from routine data studies. For levetiracetam exposure, pooled data provided similar risk ratios to women without epilepsy in cohort (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.93) and routine health record studies (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.66). This was supported by the pooled results from both cohort (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28) and routine health record studies (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.71) when comparisons were made to the offspring of women with untreated epilepsy. For topiramate, the prevalence of MCM was 3.9% (95% CI 2.3 to 6.5) from cohort study data and 4.1% (0.0 to 27,050.1) from routine health record studies. Risk ratios were significantly higher for children exposed to topiramate in comparison to the children of women without epilepsy in cohort studies (RR 4.07, 95% CI 1.64 to 10.14) but not in a smaller comparison to the children of women with untreated epilepsy (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.27); few data are currently available from routine health record studies. Exposure in utero to topiramate was also associated with significantly higher RRs in comparison to other ASMs for oro-facial clefts. Data for all other ASMs were extremely limited. Given the observational designs, all studies were at high risk of certain biases, but the biases observed across primary data collection studies and secondary use of routine health records were different and were, in part, complementary. Biases were balanced across the ASMs investigated, and it is unlikely that the differential results observed across the ASMs are solely explained by these biases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exposure in the womb to certain ASMs was associated with an increased risk of certain MCMs which, for many, is dose-dependent.

ANTECEDENTES: La exposición prenatal a determinados fármacos anticonvulsivos (FAC) se asocia con un mayor riesgo de malformaciones congénitas graves (MCG). La mayoría de las mujeres con epilepsia continúan tomando FAC durante todo el embarazo y, por lo tanto, se requiere información sobre los riesgos potenciales asociados con el tratamiento con FAC. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de la exposición prenatal a los FAC sobre la prevalencia de MCG en el niño. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Para la última actualización de esta revisión se hicieron búsquedas el 17 de febrero de 2022 en las siguientes bases de datos: Registro Cochrane de Estudios (Cochrane Register of Studies [CRS Web]), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 hasta el 16 de febrero de 2022), SCOPUS (1823 en adelante) y ClinicalTrials.gov , Plataforma de registros internacionales de ensayos clínicos (ICTRP). No se impusieron restricciones de idioma. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron estudios prospectivos controlados de cohortes, estudios de cohortes establecidos dentro de registros de embarazos, ensayos controlados aleatorizados y estudios epidemiológicos que utilizaron datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Las participantes fueron mujeres con epilepsia que tomaban FAC; los dos grupos de control fueron mujeres sin epilepsia y mujeres con epilepsia que no recibían tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Cinco autores seleccionaron de forma independiente los estudios para inclusión. Ocho autores completaron la extracción de los datos y las evaluaciones del riesgo de sesgo. El desenlace principal fue la presencia de una MCG. Los desenlaces secundarios incluyeron tipos específicos de MCG. Cuando no fue posible realizar un metanálisis, los estudios incluidos se examinaron de forma narrativa. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: De 12 296 resúmenes, se revisaron 283 publicaciones a texto completo que identificaron 49 estudios con 128 publicaciones entre ellos. Los datos de los embarazos expuestos a FAC fueron más numerosos en el caso de los estudios prospectivos de cohortes (n = 17 963), que los datos actualmente disponibles de estudios de registros sanitarios epidemiológicos (n = 7913). El riesgo de MCG en los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia fue del 2,1% (IC del 95%: 1,5 a 3,0) en los estudios de cohortes y del 3,3% (IC del 95%: 1,5 a 7,1) en los estudios de registros sanitarios. El riesgo conocido asociado con la exposición al valproato de sodio fue evidente en todas las comparaciones, con una prevalencia agrupada del 9,8% (IC del 95%: 8,1 a 11,9) a partir de los datos de los estudios de cohortes y del 9,7% (IC del 95%: 7,1 a 13,4) a partir de los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Este fue elevado en casi todas las comparaciones con otros FAC como monoterapia, con diferencias absolutas de riesgo que variaron entre el 5% y el 9%. Múltiples estudios han constatado que el riesgo de MCG depende de la dosis. Los niños expuestos a la carbamazepina tuvieron una mayor prevalencia de MCG tanto en los estudios de cohortes (4,7%; IC del 95%: 3,7 a 5,9) como en los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (4,0%; IC del 95%: 2,9 a 5,4), que fue significativamente superior a la de los niños nacidos de mujeres sin epilepsia tanto en los estudios de cohortes (RR 2,30; IC del 95%: 1,47 a 3,59) como en los estudios de historias clínicas habituales (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,80 a 1,64), con resultados significativos similares en comparación con los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento tanto en los estudios de cohortes (RR 1,44; IC del 95%: 1,05 a 1,96) como en los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (RR 1,42; IC del 95%: 1,10 a 1,83). Para la exposición al fenobarbital, la prevalencia fue del 6,3% (IC del 95%: 4,8 a 8,3) y del 8,8% IC del 95%: 0,0 a 9277,0) a partir de los datos de estudios de cohortes y los datos de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos, respectivamente. Este aumento del riesgo fue significativo en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 3,22; IC del 95%: 1,84 a 5,65) y los nacidos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,64; IC del 95%: 0,94 a 2,83) en estudios de cohortes; los datos procedentes de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos fueron limitados. En cuanto a la exposición a la fenitoína, la prevalencia de MCG fue elevada en los datos de los estudios de cohortes (5,4%; IC del 95%: 3,6 a 8,1) y en los datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (6,8%; IC del 95%: 0,1 a 701,2). La prevalencia de MCG fue mayor en los niños expuestos a la fenitoína en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 3,81; IC del 95%: 1,91 a 7,57) y los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 2,01; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 3,12); no hubo datos procedentes de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Los datos agrupados de los estudios de cohortes indicaron un riesgo significativamente mayor de MCG en los niños expuestos a lamotrigina en comparación con los niños nacidos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 1,99; IC del 95%: 1,16 a 3,39); con una diferencia de riesgos (DR) que indica un riesgo 1% mayor de MCG (DR 0,01. IC del 95%: 0,00 a 0,03). Esto no se repitió en la comparación con los hijos de las mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,04; IC del 95%: 0,66 a 1,63), que contenía el mayor grupo de niños expuestos a la lamotrigina (> 2700). Además, también se encontró una diferencia no significativa tanto en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia (RR 1,19; IC del 95%: 0,86 a 1,64) como con los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,00; IC del 95%: 0,79 a 1,28) a partir de los estudios con datos rutinarios. Para la exposición al levetiracetam, los datos agrupados proporcionaron razones de riesgos similares a las de las mujeres sin epilepsia en los estudios de cohortes (RR 2,20; IC del 95%: 0,98 a 4,93) y en los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (RR 0,67; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 2,66). Los resultados agrupados de los estudios de cohortes (RR: 0,71; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,28) y de los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos (RR: 0,82; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,71) respaldan esta afirmación cuando se comparan con los hijos de las mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento. En el caso del topiramato, la prevalencia de MCG fue del 3,9% (IC del 95%: 2,3 a 6,5) a partir de los datos de los estudios de cohortes y del 4,1% (0,0 a 27.050,1) a partir de los estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. Las razones de riesgos fueron significativamente más altas para los niños expuestos al topiramato en comparación con los hijos de mujeres sin epilepsia en estudios de cohortes (RR 4,07; IC del 95%: 1,64 a 10,14), pero no en una comparación más pequeña con los hijos de mujeres con epilepsia que no reciben tratamiento (RR 1,37; IC del 95%: 0,57 a 3,27); actualmente se dispone de pocos datos a partir de estudios con datos rutinarios de los historiales médicos. La exposición en el útero al topiramato también se asoció con RR significativamente mayores en comparación con otros FAC para las hendiduras orofaciales. Los datos de todos las demás FAC fueron extremadamente limitados. Debido a los diseños observacionales, todos los estudios presentaron un alto riesgo de ciertos sesgos, pero los sesgos observados en los estudios de obtención de datos primarios y el uso secundario de historiales médicos rutinarios fueron diferentes y, en parte, complementarios. Los sesgos estaban equilibrados entre los FAC investigados, y es poco probable que los resultados diferenciales observados entre los FAC se expliquen únicamente por estos sesgos. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La exposición en el útero a ciertos FAC se asoció con un mayor riesgo de ciertos MCG que, para muchos, depende de la dosis.

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.

First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men, is less associated with smoking, but occurs at a younger age than sporadic tumours. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of single-agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included response rate, symptom palliation, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2020, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 27th July 2020), Embase (1980 to 27th July 2020), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 27th July 2020). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (July 2020); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 3023, of whom approximately 2563 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was used in eight trials, gefitinib in nine trials, afatinib in two trials, cetuximab in two trials, and icotinib in one trial. The findings of FASTACT 2 suggested a clinical benefit for OS for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, as did the Han 2017 trial for gefitinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, but both results were based on a small number of participants (n = 97 and 122, respectively). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of four trials showed evidence of clinical benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.39 ; 583 participants ; high-certainty evidence). A pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48 ; 491 participants high-certainty evidence), and a pooled analysis of two trials of gefitinib versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed maintenance also showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS for gefitinib (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, 371 participants ; moderate-certainty evidence). Afatinib showed evidence of clinical benefit for PFS when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53, 709 participants high-certainty evidence). All but one small trial showed a corresponding improvement in response rate with tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events associated with afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib and icotinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms; fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. Seven trials reported on health-related quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, two trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the TKI compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged PFS compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adverse effect and health-related quality of life. We found limited evidence for increased OS for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy, but the majority of the included trials allowed participants to switch treatments on disease progression, which will have a confounding effect on any OS analysis. Single agent-TKI remains the standard of care and the benefit of combining a TKI and chemotherapy remains uncertain as the evidence is based on small patient numbers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib or icotinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There are no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy. Icotinib is not available outside China.

Encorafenib with Binimetinib for the Treatment of Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma: 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 (NICE) invited Pierre Fabre to submit evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with binimetinib (Enco + Bini) versus dabrafenib with trametinib (Dab + Tram) as a first-line treatment for advanced (unresectable or metastatic) BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission (CS), and the Appraisal Committee's (AC's) final decision. The main clinical evidence in the CS was derived from the COLUMBUS trial and focused on the efficacy of Enco + Bini (encorafenib 450 mg per day plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily) compared to vemurafenib. The company conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) to indirectly estimate the relative effects of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram. None of the results from the NMAs demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the treatment regimens for any outcomes. The ERG advised caution when interpreting the results from the company's NMAs due to limitations relating to the methods. The ERG considered that use of the OS and PFS hazard ratios (HRs) generated by the company's NMAs to model the relative effectiveness of Enco + Bini versus Dab + Tram in the company model was inappropriate as these estimates were not statistically significantly different. The ERG amended the company's economic model to include estimates of equivalent efficacy, safety and HRQoL for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram. The ERG considered use of different estimates of relative dose intensity to be inappropriate and used the same estimate for both drug combinations. The ERG also concluded that as only the prices of drug combinations were different, a cost comparison was an appropriate method of economic analysis. Using this approach (combined with confidential discounted drug prices for Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram), treatment with Enco + Bini was more cost effective than treatment with Dab + Tram. The AC raised concerns that an absence of evidence of a difference in outcomes between Enco + Bini and Dab + Tram did not constitute evidence of absence. However, as the numerical differences in outcomes generated by the company's networks were small, the AC did not have a preferred approach and considered that both the company's and the ERG's methods of incorporating outcome estimates into the economic model were suitable for decision making. The NICE AC recommended Enco + Bini as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation.

Antiepileptic drugs as prophylaxis for postcraniotomy seizures.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients with an irregular pulse using single time point testing: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can be used to detect AF at a single time point in people who present with relevant signs or symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of using single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people presenting to primary care with relevant signs or symptoms, and who have an irregular pulse compared with using manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment Database. METHODS: The systematic review methods followed published guidance. Two reviewers screened the search results (database inception to April 2018), extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. An economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices. RESULTS: No studies were identified that evaluated the use of lead-I ECG devices for patients with signs or symptoms of AF. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact results presented are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.2% to 97.4%] and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI 90.4% to 98.8%). One study reported limited clinical outcome data. Acceptability of lead-I ECG devices was reported in four studies, with generally positive views. The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generated ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile (AliveCor Ltd, Mountain View, CA, USA) is the most cost-effective option in a full incremental analysis. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost-effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the population of interest are available. CONCLUSIONS: Single time point lead-I ECG devices for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appear to be a cost-effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG in primary or secondary care, given the assumptions used in the base-case model. FUTURE WORK: Studies assessing how the use of lead-I ECG devices in this population affects the number of people diagnosed with AF when compared with current practice would be useful. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018090375. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of abnormal heart rhythm. People with AF are more likely to have a serious stroke or die than people without the condition. Many people go to their general practitioner (GP) with the signs or symptoms commonly linked to AF, such as feeling dizzy, being short of breath, feeling tired and having heart palpitations. GPs check for AF by taking the patient's pulse by hand. If the GP thinks that the patient might have AF, a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) test is arranged. Lead-I (i.e. one lead) ECGs are handheld electronic devices that could detect AF more accurately than a manual pulse check. If GPs were to routinely use lead-I ECG devices, people with suspected AF could receive treatment while waiting for the AF diagnosis to be confirmed by a 12-lead ECG. This study aimed to assess whether or not the use of lead-I ECGs in GP surgeries could benefit these patients and offer good value for money to the NHS. All studies that examined how well lead-I ECGs identified people with AF were reviewed, and the economic value of using these devices was assessed. No evidence was found that examined the use of lead-I ECGs for people with signs or symptoms of AF. As an alternative, evidence for the use of lead-I ECGs for people with no symptoms of AF was searched for and these data were used to assess value for money. The study found that using a manual pulse check followed by a lead-I ECG offers value for money when compared with a manual pulse check followed by a 12-lead ECG. This is mostly because patients with AF can begin treatment earlier when a GP has access to a lead-I ECG device.

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.

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients attending primary care with an irregular pulse using single-time point testing: A systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can detect AF at a single-time point. PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost effectiveness of single-time point lead-I ECG devices compared with manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG for the detection of AF in symptomatic primary care patients with an irregular pulse. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed study quality. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy The diagnostic accuracy (13 publications reporting on nine studies) and clinical impact (24 publications reporting on 19 studies) results are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.2% to 97.4%) and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI: 90.4% to 98.8%). Cost effectiveness The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generate ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-£30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile is the most cost effective option in a full incremental analysis. Lead-I ECG tests may identify more AF cases than the standard diagnostic pathway. This comes at a higher cost but with greater patient benefit in terms of mortality and quality of life. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the target population are available. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single-time point lead-I ECG devices in primary care for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appears to be a cost effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG, given the assumptions used in the base case model. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018090375.

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.

Cladribine Tablets for the First-Line Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: 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 Merck to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cladribine tablets (cladribine) for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Rapidly evolving severe (RES) and sub-optimally treated (SOT) RRMS were specified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as subgroups of interest. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group. This article summarises the Evidence Review Group's review of the company's evidence submission for cladribine and the Appraisal Committee's final decision. The final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence listed the following disease-modifying treatments as comparators: alemtuzumab, daclizumab, fingolimod and natalizumab. At the time of the company submission, a licence was anticipated for low-dose cladribine. The main clinical evidence (the CLARITY trial) in the company submission focused on the efficacy of low-dose cladribine vs. placebo. The CLARITY trial showed a statistically significant reduction in relapse rate for cladribine in the RES-RRMS subgroup (n = 50) but not in the SOT-RRMS subgroup (n = 19). Cladribine showed a numerical, but not a statistically significant, advantage in delaying disability progression at 6 months in the RES-RRMS subgroup. Disability progression benefits could not be estimated for those in the SOT-RRMS subgroup because of few events. The Evidence Review Group's main concern regarding the clinical evidence was the small sample size of the subgroups. To compare the effectiveness of cladribine to other disease-modifying treatments, the company conducted network meta-analyses, which showed cladribine and its comparators to be equally effective. The Evidence Review Group considered the results of the disease-modifying treatments to be unreliable because few trials were in the network. The company's cost-effectiveness evidence showed cladribine to be cheaper and more effective than other disease-modifying treatments in the RES-RRMS arm and the SOT-RRMS arm. The results were most sensitive to treatment effect on disability progression at 6 months. The Evidence Review Group was concerned that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that cladribine was superior to placebo in delaying disability progression. The Evidence Review Group amended the company's economic model to allow alternative estimates for the treatment effect of cladribine and its comparators on relapse rate and disability progression at 6 months. The Evidence Review Group made other changes to the company model. After implementing all the amendments, cladribine remained cost effective in the RES-RRMS and SOT-RRMS subgroups. The Appraisal Committee recognised the uncertainty in the available data but concluded that cladribine could be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.

Antiepileptic drugs as prophylaxis for postcraniotomy seizures.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in Issue 3, 2015.The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases on 26 June 2017: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence.Incidences of death were reported in only five trials. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability.We considered the evidence to be of low quality for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited, low-quality evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: 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 Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.No trials reported results on quality of life or angina. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.More randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.

Monotherapy treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy: congenital malformation outcomes in the child.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that certain antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are teratogenic and are associated with an increased risk of congenital malformation. The majority of women with epilepsy continue taking AEDs throughout pregnancy; therefore it is important that comprehensive information on the potential risks associated with AED treatment is available. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prenatal exposure to AEDs on the prevalence of congenital malformations in the child. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (September 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE (via Ovid) (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1974 to September 2015), Pharmline (1978 to September 2015), Reprotox (1983 to September 2015) and conference abstracts (2010-2015) without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective cohort controlled studies, cohort studies set within pregnancy registries and randomised controlled trials. Participants were women with epilepsy taking AEDs; the two control groups were women without epilepsy and women with epilepsy who were not taking AEDs during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently selected studies for inclusion. Five authors completed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome was the presence of a major congenital malformation. Secondary outcomes included specific types of major congenital malformations. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we reviewed included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 studies, with 31 contributing to meta-analysis. Study quality varied, and given the observational design, all were at high risk of certain biases. However, biases were balanced across the AEDs investigated and we believe that the results are not explained by these biases.Children exposed to carbamazepine (CBZ) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 1367 vs 2146, risk ratio (RR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.36) and women with untreated epilepsy (N = 3058 vs 1287, RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.19). Children exposed to phenobarbital (PB) were at a higher risk of malformation than children born to women without epilepsy (N = 345 vs 1591, RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.13). Children exposed to phenytoin (PHT) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 477 vs 987, RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.03) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 640 vs 1256, RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.08). Children exposed to topiramate (TPM) were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 359 vs 442, RR 3.69, 95% CI 1.36 to 10.07). The children exposed to valproate (VPA) were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children born to women without epilepsy (N = 467 vs 1936, RR 5.69, 95% CI 3.33 to 9.73) and to women with untreated epilepsy (N = 1923 vs 1259, RR 3.13, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.54). There was no increased risk for major malformation for lamotrigine (LTG). Gabapentin (GBP), levetiracetam (LEV), oxcarbazepine (OXC), primidone (PRM) or zonisamide (ZNS) were not associated with an increased risk, however, there were substantially fewer data for these medications.For AED comparisons, children exposed to VPA had the greatest risk of malformation (10.93%, 95% CI 8.91 to 13.13). Children exposed to VPA were at an increased risk of malformation compared with children exposed to CBZ (N = 2529 vs 4549, RR 2.44, 95% CI 2.00 to 2.94), GBP (N = 1814 vs 190, RR 6.21, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.23), LEV (N = 1814 vs 817, RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.13 to 10.81), LTG (N = 2021 vs 4164, RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.77 to 4.58), TPM (N = 1814 vs 473, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.95), OXC (N = 676 vs 238, RR 3.71, 95% CI 1.65 to 8.33), PB (N = 1137 vs 626, RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.29, PHT (N = 2319 vs 1137, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.71) or ZNS (N = 323 vs 90, RR 17.13, 95% CI 1.06 to 277.48). Children exposed to CBZ were at a higher risk of malformation than those exposed to LEV (N = 3051 vs 817, RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.29) and children exposed to LTG (N = 3385 vs 4164, RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76). Children exposed to PB were at a higher risk of malformation compared with children exposed to GBP (N = 204 vs 159, RR 8.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 50.00), LEV (N = 204 vs 513, RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.00) or LTG (N = 282 vs 1959, RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.88). Children exposed to PHT had a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LTG (N = 624 vs 4082, RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.94) or to LEV (N = 566 vs 817, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.85); however, the comparison to LEV was not significant in the random-effects model. Children exposed to TPM were at a higher risk of malformation than children exposed to LEV (N = 473 vs 817, RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.85) or LTG (N = 473 vs 3975, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.94). There were no other significant differences, or comparisons were limited to a single study.We found significantly higher rates of specific malformations associating PB exposure with cardiac malformations and VPA exposure with neural tube, cardiac, oro-facial/craniofacial, and skeletal and limb malformations in comparison to other AEDs. Dose of exposure mediated the risk of malformation following VPA exposure; a potential dose-response association for the other AEDs remained less clear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exposure in the womb to certain AEDs carried an increased risk of malformation in the foetus and may be associated with specific patterns of malformation. Based on current evidence, LEV and LTG exposure carried the lowest risk of overall malformation; however, data pertaining to specific malformations are lacking. Physicians should discuss both the risks and treatment efficacy with the patient prior to commencing treatment.

Nitrous oxide-based versus nitrous oxide-free general anaesthesia and accidental awareness during general anaesthesia in surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA) is when a patient unintentionally becomes conscious during a procedure performed with general anaesthesia and subsequently has explicit recall of this event. Incidence estimates for AAGA vary, with the most common estimate being one to two cases per 1000 general anaesthetics. Evidence linking nitrous oxide use and an increased risk of AAGA has come from observational studies data but the literature is contradictory, with some studies finding a protective effect of nitrous oxide. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of general anaesthesia including nitrous oxide on the risk of AAGA in patients aged five years and over. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registers ((www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/network/en/) and Current Controlled Trials (www.isrctn.com/)) for eligible studies on December 9 2015. In addition, we conducted forward and backward citation searching using key identified papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-randomized studies and cluster-randomized studies, of participants aged five years or older receiving general anaesthesia for any type of surgery.We included trials in which participants receiving general anaesthesia that included nitrous oxide for maintenance at a concentration of at least 30% were compared with participants receiving no nitrous oxide during general anaesthesia. The intervention group must have received nitrous oxide in conjunction with an additional anaesthetic. We excluded studies where the depth of anaesthesia differed between the study arms. For inclusion in the review, studies needed to state in their methods that they planned to assess AAGA. We defined this as when a patient becomes conscious during a procedure performed with general anaesthesia and subsequently has explicit recall of this event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to identify studies. We extracted data and conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Covidence database. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies. The total number of participants included in the analyses was 3520. Most studies were small with fewer than 120 participants, although two larger studies with 2012 and 671 participants were included. There was considerable variation in many of the study characteristics, including the anaesthetics used. The concentrations of nitrous oxide varied between 50% and 70%, and half of the studies used clinical signs and haemodynamic changes to monitor depth of anaesthesia.As it was not possible to blind the anaesthetist to the anaesthetic used, we rated all studies at high risk of performance bias and we therefore downgraded the quality of evidence by one level for risk of bias using the GRADE approach. Other types of bias were generally low, or were rated unclear due to missing information.No studies were designed to measure AAGA as the primary outcome, and were therefore statistically underpowered to answer this review question. Despite the inclusion of 3520 participants, only three awareness events were reported by two studies. In one study the event was due to technical failure. Due to the rarity of the events, we did not consider it appropriate to pool the data, and we therefore downgraded the quality of evidence by a further level for imprecision using GRADE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to draw any conclusions from this review. The included studies were mainly small (fewer than 120 participants) and there were limited estimates of effect, with only two studies reporting any events. We cannot therefore determine whether the use of nitrous oxide in general anaesthesia increases, decreases or has no effect on the risk of accidental awareness.

Pharmacological treatment of acute agitation associated with psychotic and bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We used systematic review methodology to identify and evaluate short-term pharmacological interventions for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: We searched electronic databases for randomised controlled trials involving comparisons between current treatments for agitation, benzodiazepines, antipsychotics and placebo. The patient population was adults with agitation associated with psychotic or bipolar disorder treated in specialist mental health services. The outcome of interest was change in agitation measured by accepted standard scales. Paired meta-analyses and network meta-analyses are presented. RESULTS: Seventeen randomised controlled trials were identified (n = 3841). Treatments included haloperidol, olanzapine, aripiprazole, risperidone and lorazepam. The primary outcome was change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component scores. Pair-wise comparisons suggest that after 60 min, olanzapine is superior to haloperidol; no other treatment was more effective than any other. At 120 min, loxapine 10 mg is more effective than loxapine 5 mg, and olanzapine is more effective than lorazepam. In the network meta-analyses, no treatment was superior to any other. CONCLUSION: Because of limitations of available research, firm conclusions could not be drawn regarding the efficacy and safety of any identified intervention. Based on our results, there is no evidence that one drug is more effective or preferred over any other and treatment decisions could be made based on individual patient needs or costs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

First-line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is emerging as an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men and is less associated with smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of single -agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, response rate, toxicity, and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of the the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 1 June 2015), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 1 June 2015). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (1 June 2015); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 2317, of whom 1700 were of Asian origin.Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo.Erlotinib was the intervention treatment used in eight trials, gefitinib in seven trials, afatinib in two trials, and cetuximab in two trials. The findings of one trial (FASTACT 2) did report a statistically significant OS gain for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, but this result was based on a small number of participants (n = 97). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of 3 trials (n = 378) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.38).In a pooled analysis with 491 participants administered gefitinib, 2 trials (IPASS and NEJSG) demonstrated a statistically significant PFS benefit of gefitinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48).Afatinib (n = 709) showed a statistically significant PFS benefit when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of 2 trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53).Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events for afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms, fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies.No statistically significant PFS or OS benefit for cetuximab plus cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 81) compared to chemotherapy alone was reported in either of the two trials.Six trials reported on quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, 2 trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy.The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged progression-free survival compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We also found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, we found no increase in overall survival for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There were no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy.

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered. REVIEW METHODS: Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained). RESULTS: Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC. CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK: The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prasugrel (Efient®) with percutaneous coronary intervention for treating acute coronary syndromes (review of TA182): systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are life-threatening conditions associated with acute myocardial ischaemia. There are three main types of ACS: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina (UA). One treatment for ACS is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus adjunctive treatment with antiplatelet drugs. Dual therapy antiplatelet treatment [aspirin plus either prasugrel (Efient(®), Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd UK/Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), clopidogrel or ticagrelor (Brilique(®), AstraZeneca)] is standard in UK clinical practice. Prasugrel is the focus of this review. OBJECTIVES: The remit is to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel within its licensed indication for the treatment of ACS with PCI and is a review of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisal TA182. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched from database inception to June 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to August 2013 for economic evaluations comparing prasugrel with clopidogrel or ticagrelor in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: Clinical outcomes included non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular (CV) events, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Cost-effectiveness outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. An independent economic model assessed four mutually exclusive subgroups: ACS patients treated with PCI for STEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus and ACS patients treated with PCI for UA or NSTEMI and with and without diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: No new RCTs were identified beyond that reported in TA182. TRITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38) compared prasugrel with clopidogrel in ACS patients scheduled for PCI. No relevant economic evaluations were identified. Our analyses focused on a key subgroup of patients: those aged < 75 years who weighed > 60 kg (no previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack). For the primary composite end point (death from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) statistically significantly fewer events occurred in the prasugrel arm (8.3%) than in the clopidogrel arm (11%). No statistically significant difference in major bleeding events was noted. However, there was a significant difference in favour of clopidogrel when major and minor bleeding events were combined (3.0 vs. 3.9%). No conclusions could be drawn regarding HRQoL. The results of sensitivity analyses confirmed that it is likely that, for all four ACS subgroups, within 5-10 years prasugrel is a cost-effective treatment option compared with clopidogrel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained. At the full 40-year time horizon, all estimates are < £10,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. The long-term modelling exercise is vulnerable to major assumptions about the continuation of early health outcome gains. CONCLUSION: A key strength of the review is that it demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel using the generic price of clopidogrel. Although the report demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel at a threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained, the long-term modelling is vulnerable to major assumptions regarding long-term gains. Lack of data precluded a clinical comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor; the comparative effectiveness of prasugrel compared with ticagrelor therefore remains unknown. Well-audited data are needed from a long-term UK clinical registry on defined ACS patient groups treated with PCI who receive prasugrel, ticagrelor and clopidogrel. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005047. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.