Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework.

INTRODUCTION: The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults. METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework. RESULTS: Twenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2 > 75%) except death (I2 = 0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized controlled trial data. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the GRADE framework.

Introduction: Despite representing only 3% of the US population, immunocompromised (IC) individuals account for nearly half of the COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations. IC individuals generate a lower immune response after vaccination in general, and the US CDC recommended a third dose of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines as part of their primary series. Influenza vaccine trials have shown that increasing dosage could improve effectiveness in IC populations. The objective of this systematic literature review and pairwise meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of mRNA-1273 (50 or 100 mcg/dose) vs BNT162b2 (30 mcg/dose) in IC populations using the GRADE framework. Methods: The systematic literature search was conducted in the World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database. Studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis if they reported comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in IC individuals ≥18 years of age; outcomes of interest were symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and mortality due to COVID-19. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. Outcomes were also analyzed in subgroups of patients with cancer, autoimmune disease, and solid organ transplant. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: Overall, 17 studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]; P=0.0151; I2 = 67.7%), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.93]; P=0.0009; I2 = 0%), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%), and COVID-19-associated mortality (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.90]; P=0.0119; I2 = 0%) in IC populations. Results were consistent across subgroups. Because of sample size limitations, relative effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC populations cannot be studied in randomized trials. Based on nonrandomized studies, evidence certainty among comparisons was type 3 (low) and 4 (very low), reflecting potential biases in observational studies. Conclusion: This GRADE meta-analysis based on a large number of consistent observational studies showed that the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine is associated with improved clinical effectiveness in IC populations compared with BNT162b2.

Diagnostic Models Combining Clinical Information, Ultrasound and Biochemical Markers for Ovarian Cancer: Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is a diagnostic challenge, with the majority diagnosed at late stages. Existing systematic reviews of diagnostic models either use inappropriate meta-analytic methods or do not conduct statistical comparisons of models or stratify test performance by menopausal status. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE, Health Technology Assessment Database and SCI Science Citation Index, trials registers, conference proceedings from 1991 to June 2019. Cochrane collaboration review methods included QUADAS-2 quality assessment and meta-analysis using hierarchical modelling. RMI, ROMA or ADNEX at any test positivity threshold were investigated. Histology or clinical follow-up was the reference standard. We excluded screening studies, studies restricted to pregnancy, recurrent or metastatic OC. 2 × 2 diagnostic tables were extracted separately for pre- and post-menopausal women. Results: We included 58 studies (30,121 patients, 9061 cases of ovarian cancer). Prevalence of OC ranged from 16 to 55% in studies. For premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (+/−2) and ADNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at 200 (p < 0.0001) 77.8 (72.5, 82.4), 94.9 (92.5, 96.6), and 57.1% (50.6 to 63.4) but lower specificity (p < 0.002), 92.5 (90.0, 94.4), 84.3 (81.3, 86.8), and 78.2 (75.8, 80.4). For postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (+/−2) and AdNEX at a threshold of 10% demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity compared to RMI I at a threshold of 200 (p < 0.001) 90.4 (87.4, 92.7), 97.6 (96.2, 98.5), and 78.7 (74.3, 82.5), specificity of ROMA was comparable, whilst ADneX was lower, 85.5 (81.3, 88.9), 81.3 (76.9, 85.0) (p = 0.155), compared to RMI 55.2 (51.2, 59.1) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pre-menopausal women, ROMA and ADNEX offer significantly higher sensitivity but significantly decreased specificity. In post-menopausal women, ROMA demonstrates significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI I, ADNEX has the highest sensitivity of all models, but with significantly reduced specificity. RMI I has poor sensitivity compared to ROMA or ADNEX. Choice between ROMA and ADNEX as a replacement test will depend on cost effectiveness and resource implications.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods. OBJECTIVES: To establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) form June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Two tests evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2) and the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and one test evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX. The higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies. In premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%). In postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to preserve insulin-secreting ß-cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: Results from intervention studies aimed at improving glucose control.

AIMS: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by the destruction of pancreatic ß-cells. Significant levels of ß-cells remain at diagnosis. Preserving these cells improves glucose control and protects from long-term complications. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to preserve ß-cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. This paper reports the results of interventions for improving glucose control to assess whether they preserve ß-cell function. METHODS: Searches for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Eligible studies included newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, any intervention to improve glucose control and at least 1 month of follow-up. Data were extracted using a pre-defined data-extraction sheet with 10% of extractions checked by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with 1662 participants were grouped by intervention into six subgroups (alternative insulins, subcutaneous and intravenous insulin delivery, intensive therapy, glucose sensing, adjuncts). Only three studies demonstrated an improvement in glucose control as well as ß-cell function. These interventions included intensive insulin therapy and use of an alternative insulin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest comprehensive review of RCTs in this area. It demonstrates a lack of robust evidence that interventions to improve glucose control preserve ß-cell function in new onset type 1 diabetes, although analysis was hampered by low-quality evidence and inconsistent reporting of studies. Development of guidelines to support the design of trials in this field is a priority.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and/or colour duplex ultrasound for surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is less invasive than open surgery, but may be associated with important complications. Patients receiving EVAR require long-term surveillance to detect abnormalities and direct treatments. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) has been the most common imaging modality adopted for EVAR surveillance, but it is associated with repeated radiation exposure and the risk of contrast-related nephropathy. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDU) and, more recently, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEU) have been suggested as possible, safer, alternatives to CTA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies, using either CDU or CEU alone or in conjunction with plain radiography, compared with CTA for EVAR surveillance. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Scopus' Articles-in-Press, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1996 onwards. We also searched for relevant ongoing studies and conference proceedings. The final searches were undertaken in September 2016. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies of patients with AAAs who were receiving surveillance using CTA, CDU and CEU with or without plain radiography. Three reviewers were involved in the study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. We developed a Markov model based on five surveillance strategies: (1) annual CTA; (2) annual CDU; (3) annual CEU; (4) CDU together with CTA at 1 year, followed by CDU on an annual basis; and (5) CEU together with CTA at 1 year, followed by CEU on an annual basis. All of these strategies also considered plain radiography on an annual basis. RESULTS: We identified two non-randomised comparative studies and 25 cohort studies of interventions, and nine systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Overall, the proportion of patients who required reintervention ranged from 1.1% (mean follow-up of 24 months) to 23.8% (mean follow-up of 32 months). Reintervention was mainly required for patients with thrombosis and types I-III endoleaks. All-cause mortality ranged from 2.7% (mean follow-up of 24 months) to 42% (mean follow-up of 54.8 months). Aneurysm-related mortality occurred in < 1% of the participants. Strategies based on early and mid-term CTA and/or CDU and long-term CDU surveillance were broadly comparable with those based on a combination of CTA and CDU throughout the follow-up period in terms of clinical complications, reinterventions and mortality. The economic evaluation showed that a CDU-based strategy generated lower expected costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) than a CTA-based strategy and has a 63% probability of being cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay-per-QALY threshold. A CEU-based strategy generated more QALYs, but at higher costs, and became cost-effective only for high-risk patient groups. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were rated as being at a high or moderate risk of bias. No studies compared CDU with CEU. Substantial clinical heterogeneity precluded a formal synthesis of results. The economic model was hindered by a lack of suitable data. CONCLUSIONS: Current surveillance practice is very heterogeneous. CDU may be a safe and cost-effective alternative to CTA, with CTA being reserved for abnormal/inconclusive CDU cases. FUTURE WORK: Research is needed to validate the safety of modified, more-targeted surveillance protocols based on the use of CDU and CEU. The role of radiography for surveillance after EVAR requires clarification. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016036475. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Models of care for chronic kidney disease: A systematic review.

AIM: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and presents an increasing burden to patients and health services. However, the optimal model of care for patients with CKD is unclear. We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness of different models of care for the management of CKD. METHODS: A comprehensive search of eight databases was undertaken for articles published from 1992 to 2016. We included randomized controlled trials that assessed any model of care in the management of adults with pre-dialysis CKD, reporting renal, cardiovascular, mortality and other outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment was carried out independently by two authors. RESULTS: Results were summarized narratively. Nine articles (seven studies) were included. Four models of care were identified: nurse-led, multidisciplinary specialist team, pharmacist-led and self-management. Nurse and pharmacist-led care reported improved rates of prescribing of drugs relevant to CKD. Heterogeneity was high between studies and all studies were at high risk of bias. Nurse-led care and multidisciplinary specialist care were associated with small improvements in blood pressure control. CONCLUSION: Evidence of long term improvements in renal, cardiovascular or mortality endpoints was limited by short follow up. We found little published evidence about the effectiveness of different models of care to guide best practice for service design, although there was some evidence that models of care where health professionals deliver care according to a structured protocol or guideline may improve adherence to treatment targets.

Effects of weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective To assess whether weight loss interventions for adults with obesity affect all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and body weight.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random effects, estimating risk ratios, and mean differences. Heterogeneity investigated using Cochran's Q and I2 statistics. Quality of evidence assessed by GRADE criteria.Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and full texts in our trials' registry for data not evident in databases. Authors were contacted for unpublished data.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies RCTs of dietary interventions targeting weight loss, with or without exercise advice or programmes, for adults with obesity and follow-up ≥1 year.Results 54 RCTs with 30 206 participants were identified. All but one trial evaluated low fat, weight reducing diets. For the primary outcome, high quality evidence showed that weight loss interventions decrease all cause mortality (34 trials, 685 events; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.95), with six fewer deaths per 1000 participants (95% confidence interval two to 10). For other primary outcomes moderate quality evidence showed an effect on cardiovascular mortality (eight trials, 134 events; risk ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.31), and very low quality evidence showed an effect on cancer mortality (eight trials, 34 events; risk ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.11). Twenty four trials (15 176 participants) reported high quality evidence on participants developing new cardiovascular events (1043 events; risk ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.04). Nineteen trials (6330 participants) provided very low quality evidence on participants developing new cancers (103 events; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.36).Conclusions Weight reducing diets, usually low in fat and saturated fat, with or without exercise advice or programmes, may reduce premature all cause mortality in adults with obesity.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016033217.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUNDS: Current open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair have shown similar recurrence rates. However, chronic pain has been associated with Lichtenstein mesh repair, the most common surgical procedure for inguinal hernia in the UK. The position of the mesh is probably an important factor. The Lichtenstein method requires dissection of the inguinal wall and fixation of the mesh. In contrast, in the open preperitoneal approach the mesh is placed in the preperitoneal space and held in place with intra-abdominal pressure. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best open approach for repair of inguinal hernia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open preperitoneal mesh repair compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) from inception to November 2014 and contacted experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared open preperitoneal mesh repair with Lichtenstein mesh repair for the treatment of inguinal hernia. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. One reviewer completed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included studies, and two reviewers independently cross-checked the details extracted. Meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of open mesh procedures from a NHS health services perspective over a 25-year time horizon. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs involving 1568 participants were included. Participants who underwent open preperitoneal mesh repair returned to work and normal activities significantly earlier than those who underwent Lichtenstein mesh repair [mean difference -1.49 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.78 to -0.20 days]. Although no significant differences were observed between the two open approaches for incidence of pain [risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27], numbness (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.56), recurrences (Peto odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.52) or postoperative complications, fewer events were generally reported after open preperitoneal mesh repair. The results of the economic evaluation indicate that the open preperitoneal mesh repair was £256 less costly and improved health outcomes by 0.041 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair. The open preperitoneal procedure was the most efficient and dominant treatment strategy with a high (> 98%) probability of being cost-effectiveness for the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 for a QALY. Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. However, the magnitude of cost saving or QALY gain was sensitive to some model assumptions. LIMITATIONS: Overall, the included trials were of small sample size (mean 130.7 participants) and at high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analyses results demonstrated significant statistical heterogeneity for most of the assessed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Open preperitoneal mesh repair appears to be a safe and efficacious alternative to Lichtenstein mesh repair. Further research is required to determine the long-term effects of these surgical procedures as well as the most effective open preperitoneal repair technique in terms of both clinical efficacy and costs. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013510. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring (self-testing and self-management) could be a valid option for oral anticoagulation therapy monitoring in the NHS, but current evidence on its clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness is limited. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care coagulometers for the self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard clinic monitoring. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Bioscience Information Service, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2007 to May 2013. Reports published before 2007 were identified from the existing Cochrane review (major databases searched from inception to 2007). The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, other relevant reviews, routine sources of cost data and clinical experts' advice. REVIEW METHODS: We assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating self-monitoring in people with atrial fibrillation or heart valve disease requiring long-term anticoagulation therapy. CoaguChek(®) XS and S models (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), INRatio2(®) PT/INR monitor (Alere Inc., San Diego, CA USA), and ProTime Microcoagulation system(®) (International Technidyne Corporation, Nexus Dx, Edison, NJ, USA) coagulometers were compared with standard monitoring. Where possible, we combined data from included trials using standard inverse variance methods. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness over a 10-year period. RESULTS: We identified 26 RCTs (published in 45 papers) with a total of 8763 participants. CoaguChek was used in 85% of the trials. Primary analyses were based on data from 21 out of 26 trials. Only four trials were at low risk of bias. Major clinical events: self-monitoring was significantly better than standard monitoring in preventing thromboembolic events [relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.84; p = 0.004]. In people with artificial heart valves (AHVs), self-monitoring almost halved the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.82; p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92; p = 0.02). There was greater reduction in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality through self-management but not through self-testing. Intermediate outcomes: self-testing, but not self-management, showed a modest but significantly higher percentage of time in therapeutic range, compared with standard care (weighted mean difference 4.44, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18; p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes: improvements in patients' quality of life related to self-monitoring were observed in six out of nine trials. High preference rates were reported for self-monitoring (77% to 98% in four trials). Net health and social care costs over 10 years were £7295 (self-monitoring with INRatio2); £7324 (standard care monitoring); £7333 (self-monitoring with CoaguChek XS) and £8609 (self-monitoring with ProTime). The estimated quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain associated with self-monitoring was 0.03. Self-monitoring with INRatio2 or CoaguChek XS was found to have ≈ 80% chance of being cost-effective, compared with standard monitoring at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard monitoring, self-monitoring appears to be safe and effective, especially for people with AHVs. Self-monitoring, and in particular self-management, of anticoagulation status appeared cost-effective when pooled estimates of clinical effectiveness were applied. However, if self-monitoring does not result in significant reductions in thromboembolic events, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, based on a comparison of annual monitoring costs alone. Trials investigating the longer-term outcomes of self-management are needed, as well as direct comparisons of the various point-of-care coagulometers. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004944. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy compared with standard clinic care. DESIGN: Systematic review of current evidence and economic modelling. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched up to May 2013. The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, routine sources of cost data and advice from clinical experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing self-monitoring versus standard clinical care in people with different clinical conditions. Self-monitoring included both self-management (patients conducted the tests and adjusted their treatment according to an algorithm) and self-testing (patients conducted the tests, but received treatment recommendations from a clinician). Various point-of-care coagulometers were considered. RESULTS: 26 RCTs (8763 participants) were included. Both self-management and self-testing were as safe as standard care in terms of major bleeding events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45, p=0.690, and RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, p=0.92, respectively). Self-management was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.69, p ≤ 0.001) and with a borderline significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, p=0.06) than standard care. Self-testing resulted in a modest increase in time in therapeutic range compared with standard care (weighted mean difference, WMD 4.4%, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18, p=0.02). Total health and social care costs over 10 years were £7324 with standard care and £7326 with self-monitoring (estimated quality adjusted life year, QALY gain was 0.028). Self-monitoring was found to have ∼ 80% probability of being cost-effective compared with standard care applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Within the base case model, applying the pooled relative effect of thromboembolic events, self-management alone was highly cost-effective while self-testing was not. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring appears to be a safe and cost-effective option. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42013004944.

Practicalities of using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomised and non-randomised study designs applied in a health technology assessment setting.

UNLABELLED: We describe our experience of using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool for randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess time to complete RoB assessment. To assess inter-rater agreement. To explore the association between RoB and treatment effect size METHODS: Cochrane risk of bias assessment was performed on a sample of full text primary reports included in a systematic review comparing operative techniques for radical prostatectomy. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were judged as high overall RoB, 13 were judged as low RoB and 11 were unclear. The weighted Kappa value was 0.35 indicating fair agreement. The median (range) time taken to rate each study was 30 min (10-49). The effect estimate for all studies was 0.61 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.46-0.83) and 0.73 (95% CrI 0.29-1.75) for low risk studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the process was time consuming, using a modified version of the RoB tool proved useful for demonstrating conservative effect estimates. That we only achieved a fair agreement between reviewers demonstrates the urgent need for further validation to improve inter-rater agreement. We suggest additional RoB levels could improve inter-rater reliability.

Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy. METHODS: A care pathway was described. We performed a systematic literature review based on a search of Medline, Medline in Process, Embase, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Current Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and NIH Reporter, the Health Technology Assessment databases, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and relevant conference abstracts up to 31st October 2010). Additionally, reference lists were scanned, an expert panel consulted, and websites of manufacturers, professional organisations, and regulatory bodies were checked. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies, published after 1st January 1995, including men with localised prostate cancer undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic prostatectomy compared with the other procedure or with open prostatectomy. Studies where at least 90% of included men had clinical tumour stages T1 to T2 and which reported at least one of our specified outcomes were eligible for inclusion. A mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis was performed to generate comparative statistics on specified outcomes. RESULTS: We included data from 19 064 men across one RCT and 57 non-randomised comparative reports. Robotic prostatectomy had a lower risk of major intra-operative harms such as organ injury [0.4% robotic vs 2.9% laparoscopic], odds ratio ([OR] {95% credible interval [CrI]} 0.16 [0.03 to 0.76]), and a lower rate of surgical margins positive for cancer [17.6% robotic vs 23.6% laparoscopic], OR [95% CrI] 0.69 [0.51 to 0.96]). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of men with urinary incontinence at 12 months (OR [95% CrI] 0.55 [0.09 to 2.84]). There were insufficient data on sexual dysfunction. Surgeon learning rates for the procedures did not differ, although data were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Men undergoing robotic prostatectomy appear to have reduced surgical morbidity, and a lower risk of a positive surgical margin, which may reduce rates of cancer recurrence and the need for further treatment, but considerable uncertainty surrounds these results. We found no evidence that men undergoing robotic prostatectomy are disadvantaged in terms of early outcomes. We were unable to determine longer-term relative effectiveness.

Screening for major diseases in community pharmacies: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the published evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of community pharmacy-based screening for major diseases. METHOD: Studies published between January 1990 and August 2012 involving community pharmacy-based screening interventions, published in the English language, were identified from electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. KEY FINDINGS: Fifty studies (one randomised controlled trial, two cluster randomised studies, five non-randomised comparative studies and 42 uncontrolled studies) were included. The quality of most of these was assessed as poor. Screening was mostly opportunistic and screening tools included questionnaires or risk assessment forms, medical equipment to make physiological measurements, or a combination of both. Few studies assessed the accuracy of pharmacy-based screening tools. More than half of the screening interventions included an element of patient education. The proportion of screened individuals, identified with disease risk factors or the disease itself, ranged from 4% to 89%. Only 10 studies reported any economic information. Where assessed, patient satisfaction with pharmacy-based screening was high, but individuals who screened positive often did not follow pharmacist advice to seek further medical help. CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests that screening for some diseases in community pharmacies is feasible. More studies are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based screening with screening by other providers. Strategies to improve screening participants' adherence to pharmacist advice also need to be explored. This systematic review will help to inform future studies wishing to develop community pharmacy-based screening interventions.

Denosumab for treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the evidence for denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours and, using a network meta-analysis, indirectly compare denosumab with bisphosphonates and best supportive care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), Cochrane Library (all sections) (issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011) and additional meeting abstracts (2010 and 2011) were searched. STUDY ELIGIBILITY, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Only randomised controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates or best supportive care in patients with bone metastases from any solid tumour were included. SYNTHESIS: Direct evidence comparing denosumab and zoledronic acid was assessed for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other solid tumours. Denosumab was compared with pamidronate and best supportive care through a network meta-analysis for each tumour type. The primary outcomes were time to first skeletal related event (SRE) and time to first and subsequent SRE. Secondary outcomes were skeletal morbidity rate, pain, quality of life (QoL) and overall survival. RESULTS: Denosumab was found to be more effective in delaying the time to first SRE and reducing the risk of first and subsequent SRE compared to zoledronic acid, placebo and pamidronate. In breast and prostate cancer, denosumab was effective in reducing skeletal morbidity rate compared with placebo. The lack of published data on pain and QoL meant that firm conclusions could not be made. Denosumab did not appear to have an affect on overall survival. LIMITATIONS: Network meta-analyses are subject to uncertainties and potential biases. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab is effective in preventing SRE, but the effect on pain and QoL is unclear.

NICE guidance: a comparative study of the introduction of the single technology appraisal process and comparison with guidance from Scottish Medicines Consortium.

Objectives To compare the timelines and recommendations of the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), in particular since the single technology assessment (STA) process was introduced in 2005. Design Comparative study of drug appraisals published by NICE and SMC. Setting NICE and SMC. Participants All drugs appraised by SMC and NICE, from establishment of each organisation until August 2010, were included. Data were gathered from published reports on the NICE website, SMC annual reports and European Medicines Agency website. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome was time from marketing authorisation until publication of first guidance. The final outcome for each drug was documented. Drug appraisals by NICE (before and after the introduction of the STA process) and SMC were compared. Results NICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, 415 were appraised by SMC alone and 102 by NICE alone. NICE recommended, with or without restriction, 90% of drugs and SMC 80%. SMC published guidance more quickly than NICE (median 7.4 compared with 21.4 months). Overall, the STA process reduced the average time to publication compared with multiple technology assessments (median 16.1 compared with 22.8 months). However, for cancer medications, the STA process took longer than multiple technology assessment (25.2 compared with 20.0 months). Conclusions Proportions of drugs recommended for NHS use by SMC and NICE are similar. SMC publishes guidance more quickly than NICE. The STA process has improved the time to publication but not for cancer drugs. The lengthier time for NICE guidance is partly due to measures to provide transparency and the widespread consultation during the NICE process.

Systematic review of escalated imatinib doses compared with sunitinib or best supportive care, for the treatment of people with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours whose disease has progressed on the standard imatinib dose.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the effectiveness of imatinib at escalated doses of 600 mg/day or 800 mg/day for treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), following progression on imatinib at the 400 mg/day dose, compared with sunitinib and/or 'best supportive care'. METHODS: Electronic searches were undertaken to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies, and case series reporting outcome data on survival, quality of life or adverse events. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers and full text reports of potentially relevant studies assessed for inclusion. Included studies were quality assessed by two reviewers and data were extracted. Five studies reported data on the relevant population and were included. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Median overall survival for imatinib (800 mg/day) and sunitinib both were less than 2 years. Around 25% of patients required either an imatinib dose delay or reduction. Approximately one-third of patients receiving dose escalated imatinib (either dose) showed either response or stable disease. Amongst those responding to the escalated 800 mg/day dose, median progression-free survival was over 25 months. The statistical likelihood of response may depend on exon mutational status. There were few data and those that were available were potentially biased, due to their non-randomised nature. Further data are needed to justify international guideline recommendations on imatinib dose escalation. CONCLUSION: A prospective audit of management and outcomes for unresectable GIST patients treated with dose escalation upon progression at 400 mg/day may be appropriate as an RCT may be unfeasible.

Measuring the population burden of chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review of the estimated prevalence of impaired kidney function.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there have been substantial efforts to improve the early identification of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with a view to improving survival, reducing progression and minimizing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In 2002, a new and globally adopted definition of CKD was introduced. The burden of kidney function impairment in the population is unclear and widely ranging prevalence estimates have been reported. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review, searching databases to June 2009. We included all adult population screening studies and studies based on laboratory or clinical datasets where the denominator was clear. Studies reporting prevalence estimates based on at least one eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m(2) or elevated creatinine above a stated threshold were included. Study design and quality were explored as potential factors leading to heterogeneity. RESULTS: We identified 43 eligible studies (57 published reports) for inclusion. Substantial heterogeneity was observed with estimated prevalence (0.6-42.6%). The included studies demonstrated significant variation in methodology and quality that impacted on the comparability of their findings. From the higher quality studies, the six studies measuring impaired kidney function (iKF) using estimated glomerular filtration rate in community screening samples reported a prevalence ranging from 1.7% in a Chinese study to 8.1% in a US study, with four reporting an estimated prevalence of 3.2-5.6%. Heterogeneity was driven by the measure used, study design and study population. CONCLUSION: In the general population, estimated iKF, particularly eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73m(2) was common with prevalence similar to diabetes mellitus. Appropriate care of patients poses a substantial global health care challenge.

Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide analogues are a new class of drugs used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes that mimic the endogenous hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). GLP-1 is an incretin, a gastrointestinal hormone that is released into the circulation in response to ingested nutrients. GLP-1 regulates glucose levels by stimulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion and biosynthesis, and by suppressing glucagon secretion, delayed gastric emptying and promoting satiety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of glucagon-like peptide analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from electronic searches of The Cochrane Library (last search issue 1, 2011), MEDLINE (last search March 2011), EMBASE (last search March 2011), Web of Science (last search March 2011) and databases of ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials of a minimum duration of eight weeks comparing a GLP-1 analogue with placebo, insulin, an oral anti-diabetic agent, or another GLP-1 analogue in people with type 2 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and quality assessment of studies were done by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were analysed by type of GLP-1 agonist and comparison treatment. Where appropriate, data were summarised in a meta-analysis (mean differences and risk ratios summarised using a random-effects model). MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen randomised controlled trials including relevant analyses for 6899 participants were included in the analysis. Studies were mostly of short duration, usually 26 weeks.In comparison with placebo, all GLP-1 agonists reduced glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels by about 1%. Exenatide 2 mg once weekly and liraglutide 1.8 mg reduced it by 0.20% and 0.24% respectively more than insulin glargine. Exenatide 2 mg once weekly reduced HbA1c more than exenatide 10 µg twice daily, sitagliptin and pioglitazone. Liraglutide 1.8 mg reduced HbA1c by 0.33% more than exenatide 10 µg twice daily. Liraglutide led to similar improvements in HbA1c compared to sulphonylureas but reduced it more than sitagliptin and rosiglitazone.Both exenatide and liraglutide led to greater weight loss than most active comparators, including in participants not experiencing nausea. Hypoglycaemia occurred more frequently in participants taking concomitant sulphonylurea. GLP-1 agonists caused gastrointestinal adverse effects, mainly nausea. These adverse events were strongest at the beginning and then subsided. Beta-cell function was improved with GLP-1 agonists but the effect did not persist after cessation of treatment.None of the studies was long enough to assess long-term positive or negative effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 agonists are effective in improving glycaemic control.