Reducing broad-spectrum antibiotic use in intensive care unit between first and second waves of COVID-19 did not adversely affect mortality.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics due to diagnostic uncertainty, particularly in critical care. Multi-professional communication became more difficult, weakening stewardship activities. AIM: To determine changes in bacterial co-/secondary infections and antibiotics used in COVID-19 patients in critical care, and mortality rates, between the first and second waves. METHODS: Prospective audit comparing bacterial co-/secondary infections and their treatment during the first two waves of the pandemic in a single-centre teaching hospital intensive care unit. Data on demographics, daily antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and culture results in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection were collected over 11 months. FINDINGS: From March 9th, 2020 to September 2nd, 2020 (Wave 1), there were 156 patients and between September 3rd, 2020 and February 1st, 2021 (Wave 2) there were 235 patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to intensive care. No significant difference was seen in mortality or positive blood culture rates between the two waves. The proportion of patients receiving antimicrobial therapy (93.0% vs 81.7%; P < 0.01) and the duration of meropenem use (median (interquartile range): 5 (2-7) vs 3 (2-5) days; P = 0.01) was lower in Wave 2. However, the number of patients with respiratory isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (4/156 vs 21/235; P < 0.01) and bacteraemia from a respiratory source (3/156 vs 20/235; P < 0.01) increased in Wave 2, associated with an outbreak of infection. There was no significant difference between waves with respect to isolation of other pathogens. CONCLUSION: Reduced broad-spectrum antimicrobial use in the second wave of COVID-19 compared with the first wave was not associated with significant change in mortality.

The effectiveness of interventions to treat severe acute malnutrition in young children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) arises as a consequence of a sudden period of food shortage and is associated with loss of a person's body fat and wasting of their skeletal muscle. Many of those affected are already undernourished and are often susceptible to disease. Infants and young children are the most vulnerable as they require extra nutrition for growth and development, have comparatively limited energy reserves and depend on others. Undernutrition can have drastic and wide-ranging consequences for the child's development and survival in the short and long term. Despite efforts made to treat SAM through different interventions and programmes, it continues to cause unacceptably high levels of mortality and morbidity. Uncertainty remains as to the most effective methods to treat severe acute malnutrition in young children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to treat infants and children aged < 5 years who have SAM. DATA SOURCES: Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, CAB Abstracts Ovid, Bioline, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EconLit EBSCO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to 2010. Bibliographies of included articles and grey literature sources were also searched. The project expert advisory group was asked to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: Prior to the systematic review, a Delphi process involving international experts prioritised the research questions. Searches were conducted and two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Included studies were mapped to the research questions. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with tabulation of the results. RESULTS: A total of 8954 records were screened, 224 full-text articles were retrieved, and 74 articles (describing 68 studies) met the inclusion criteria and were mapped. No evidence focused on treatment of children with SAM who were human immunodeficiency virus sero-positive, and no good-quality or adequately reported studies assessed treatments for SAM among infants < 6 months old. One randomised controlled trial investigated fluid resuscitation solutions for shock, with none adequately treating shock. Children with acute diarrhoea benefited from the use of hypo-osmolar oral rehydration solution (H-ORS) compared with the standard World Health Organization-oral rehydration solution (WHO-ORS). WHO-ORS was not significantly different from rehydration solution for malnutrition (ReSoMal), but the safety of ReSoMal was uncertain. A rice-based ORS was more beneficial than glucose-based ORSs, and provision of zinc plus a WHO-ORS had a favourable impact on diarrhoea and need for ORS. Comparisons of different diets in children with persistent diarrhoea produced conflicting findings. For treating infection, comparison of amoxicillin with ceftriaxone during inpatient therapy, and routine provision of antibiotics for 7 days versus no antibiotics during outpatient therapy of uncomplicated SAM, found that neither had a significant effect on recovery at the end of follow-up. No evidence mapped to the next three questions on factors that affect sustainability of programmes, long-term survival and readmission rates, the clinical effectiveness of management strategies for treating children with comorbidities such as tuberculosis and Helicobacter pylori infection and the factors that limit the full implementation of treatment programmes. Comparison of treatment for SAM in different settings showed that children receiving inpatient care appear to do as well as those in ambulatory or home settings on anthropometric measures and response time to treatment. Longer-term follow-up showed limited differences between the different settings. The majority of evidence on methods for correcting micronutrient deficiencies considered zinc supplements; however, trials were heterogeneous and a firm conclusion about zinc was not reached. There was limited evidence on either supplementary potassium or nicotinic acid (each produced some benefits), and nucleotides (not associated with benefits). Evidence was identified for four of the five remaining questions, but not assessed because of resource limitation. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review focused on key questions prioritised through a Delphi study and, as a consequence, did not encompass all elements in the management of SAM. In focusing on evidence from controlled studies with the most rigorous designs that were published in the English language, the systematic review may have excluded other forms of evidence. The systematic review identified several limitations in the evidence base for assessing the effectiveness of interventions for treating young children with severe acute malnutrition, including a lack of studies assessing the different interventions; limited details of study methods used; short follow-up post intervention or discharge; and heterogeneity in participants, interventions, settings, and outcome measures affecting generalisability. CONCLUSIONS: For many of the most highly ranked questions evidence was lacking or inconclusive. More research is needed on a range of topic areas concerning the treatment of infants and children with SAM. Further research is required on most aspects of the management of SAM in children < 5 years, including intravenous resuscitation regimens for shock, management of subgroups (e.g. infants < 6 months old, infants and children with SAM who are human immunodeficiency virus sero-positive) and on the use of antibiotics.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer in the UK. MM is not curable but can be treated with a combination of supportive measures and chemotherapy that aim to extend the duration and quality of survival. The majority of patients are not able to withstand intensive treatment, such as high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), and so they are offered single-agent or combination chemotherapy. Combination therapies typically include chemotherapy with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid. More recently, combination therapies have incorporated drugs such as thalidomide (Thalidomide Celgene®, Celgene) and bortezomib (Velcade®, Janssen-Cilag). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib or thalidomide in combination chemotherapy regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of MM. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from 1999 to 2009 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, grey literature sources and manufacturers' submissions were also searched. Experts in the field were asked to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. The inclusion criteria specified in the protocol were applied to the full text of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (VMP), thalidomide in combination with cyclophosphamide and attenuated dexamethasone (CTDa), and thalidomide in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MP). RESULTS: A total of 1436 records were screened and 40 references were retrieved for the systematic review of clinical effectiveness. Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the review: one RCT evaluated VMP, three evaluated MPT and one evaluated CTDa. The comparator in all of the included trials was MP. The review found that VMP and MPT can both be considered more clinically effective than MP for the first-line treatment of MM in people for whom high-dose therapy and SCT would not be appropriate. CTDa was more effective than MP in terms of complete response but data on survival outcomes did not meet the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that MPT has a greater probability of being cost-effective than either VMP or CTDa. LIMITATIONS: For most RCTs, details needed to judge study quality were incompletely reported. All studies stated that the analyses followed intention-to-treat principles but none adequately reported data censoring. Only one RCT contributed data on VMP and the published peer-reviewed follow-up data were immature. For MPT, overall survival data from two trials were eligible for inclusion but the doses of thalidomide differed between the trials and the treatment period was not reflective of current UK practice so the generalisability of the findings was uncertain. Two RCTs had a maintenance phase with thalidomide that did not meet the inclusion criteria so some of these results were not eligible for the review. Limited evidence on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was provided by the single trial of VMP versus MP. CONCLUSIONS: Service provision is unlikely to change greatly. As uncertainties remain, further research is needed regarding the use of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimens. Head-to-head trials of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimes are required, including assessments of patient HRQoL in response to treatment. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

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

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

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

The safety and effectiveness of different methods of earwax removal: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by irrigation of the ear if required. However, the safety and benefits of the different methods of removal are not known for certain. OBJECTIVES: To conduct evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions currently available for softening and/or removing earwax and any adverse events (AEs) associated with the interventions. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2008, including: The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), EMBASE (OVID); and CINAHL. METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text or retrieved papers and data were extracted by two reviewers using data extraction forms developed a priori. Any differences were resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Study criteria included: interventions - all methods of earwax removal available and combinations of these methods; participants - adults/children presenting requiring earwax removal; outcomes - measures of hearing, adequacy of clearance of wax, quality of life, time to recurrence or further treatment, AEs and measures of cost-effectiveness; design - randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) for clinical effectiveness, cohort studies for AEs and cost-effectiveness, and costing studies for cost-effectiveness. For the economic evaluation, a deterministic decision tree model was developed to evaluate three options: (1) the use of softeners followed by irrigation in primary care; (2) softeners followed by self-irrigation; and (3) a 'no treatment' option. Outcomes were assessed in terms of benefits to patients and costs incurred, with costs presented by exploratory cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical trials conducted in primary care (14 studies), secondary care (8 studies) or other care settings (4 studies), met the inclusion criteria for the review - 22 RCTs and 4 CCTs. The range of interventions included 16 different softeners, with or without irrigation, and in various different comparisons. Participants, outcomes, timing of intervention, follow-up and methodological quality varied between studies. On measures of wax clearance Cerumol, sodium bicarbonate, olive oil and water are all more effective than no treatment; triethanolamine polypeptide (TP) is better than olive oil; wet irrigation is better than dry irrigation; sodium bicarbonate drops followed by irrigation by nurse is more effective than sodium bicarbonate drops followed by self-irrigation; softening with TP and self-irrigation is more effective than self-irrigation only; and endoscopic de-waxing is better than microscopic de-waxing. AEs appeared to be minor and of limited extent. Resuts of the exploratory economic model found that softeners followed by self-irrigation were more likely to be cost-effective [24,433 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] than softeners followed by irrigation at primary care (32,130 pounds per QALY) when compared with no treatment. Comparison of the two active treatments showed that the additional gain associated with softeners followed by irrigation at primary care over softeners followed by self-irrigation was at a cost of 340,000 pounds per QALY. When compared over a lifetime horizon to the 'no treatment' option, the ICERs for softeners followed by self-irrigation and of softeners followed by irrigation at primary care were 24,450 pounds per QALY and 32,136 pounds per QALY, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review found limited good-quality evidence of the safety, benefits and costs of the different strategies, making it difficult to differentiate between the various methods for removing earwax and rendering the economic evaluation as speculative. CONCLUSIONS: Although softeners are effective, which specific softeners are most effective remains uncertain. Evidence on the effectiveness of methods of irrigation or mechanical removal was equivocal. Further research is required to improve the evidence base, such as a RCT incorporating an economic evaluation to assess the different ways of providing the service, the effectiveness of the different methods of removal and the acceptability of the different approaches to patients and practitioners.

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

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

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

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

The clinical effectiveness of diabetes education models for Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness of patient education models for adults with Type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from 2002 to January 2007. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on educational interventions in diabetes was undertaken. This was an update of a previous systematic review. RESULTS: Including studies identified in the previous systematic review, there were 13 published studies. Eight studies of education on multiple aspects of diabetes self-management were identified that provided education that was focused on a particular aspect of self-management. The quality of reporting and methodology of the studies was variable. Studies of multi-component educational interventions yielded mixed results. Some trials reported significant improvements on measures of diabetic control but others did not. Positive effects may be attributable to longer-term interventions with a shorter duration between the end of the intervention and the follow-up evaluation point. There may also be an effect of having a multi-professional team delivering the educational programme. Studies of focused educational interventions did not yield consistent results. Some effects were shown on measures of diabetic control in studies that focused on diet or exercise alone. Although the effects shown were generally small, those that were present did appear to be relatively long-lasting. This update review does not substantially alter the conclusions of the previous systematic review; for each outcome, the proportion of studies that demonstrated significant effects of education was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence, it would seem that education delivered by a team of educators, with some degree of reinforcement of that education made at additional points of contact, may provide the best opportunity for improvements in patient outcomes. Educators need to have time and resources to fulfil the needs of any structured educational programme. There is also a need for education to have a clear programme at the outset. From the evidence reported it is unclear what resources would need to be directed at the educators themselves to ensure that they can deliver programmes successfully. Any future research should consider patient education within the context of overall diabetes care and as such follow guidelines for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Good-quality, longer-term studies would be desirable, but these would require careful consideration around the nature of any control group. Information is needed to clarify the sensitivity of diabetes education programmes to the performance of the diabetes educators, in order to ensure success and cost-effectiveness of education programmes.

Pegaptanib and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

AIMS: To assess the clinical effectiveness of pegaptanib sodium and ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified through searching 12 electronic databases, bibliographies and consultation with experts and manufacturers. RCTs were eligible if they assessed the effects of pegaptanib or ranibizumab with best supportive care, sham injection or photodynamic therapy (PDT) on patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation associated with wet AMD and examined outcomes including visual acuity and adverse events. RESULTS: Three RCTs of ranibizumab (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS) and two of pegaptanib (VISION study) met the inclusion criteria. The RCTs included patients with different lesion types. The studies showed statistically significant benefit on different measures of visual acuity for patients receiving pegaptanib, ranibizumab or ranibizumab with PDT compared to control (sham injection, PDT or sham injection with PDT) after 12 months. These differences appeared to be clinically significant. Although adverse events were common among those receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab, they were considered mild to moderate in nature. Meta-analysis of ranibizumab trials and indirect comparison of the two drugs were not possible due to differences in the study populations' lesion types. However, results from the RCTs of ranibizumab tended to show a greater effect on visual acuity than results from the RCT of pegaptanib. CONCLUSIONS: Pegaptanib and ranibizumab appear to slow or stop the progression of neovascular AMD. Uncertainty remains over the relative benefits of pegaptanib compared with ranibizumab and other unlicensed drugs (eg, Avastin), due to the nature of the evidence. Head-to-head RCTs and economic evaluations comparing these alternatives are needed.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine, used in combination with paclitaxel, as a second-line treatment for people with metastatic breast cancer who have relapsed following treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2006. Clinical advisers were also consulted. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to appraise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine. A Markov state transition model was developed for the economic evaluation. RESULTS: The systematic review identified only one randomised controlled trials (RCT), and this has not yet been fully published. The methodological quality and quality of reporting of the included trial were assessed to be poor using standard criteria, but this may be due to the lack of information in the limited publications rather than being a fair reflection of the trial's quality. This RCT compared gemcitabine and paclitaxel therapy with paclitaxel monotherapy in 529 patients with metastatic breast cancer who had previously received anthracyclines, but no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Approximately 71% of the gemcitabine/paclitaxel patients survived for 1 year, compared with 61% of the paclitaxel group. The hazard ratio showed a 26% lower chance of survival in the paclitaxel group, and time to progressive disease was also shorter in this group. The overall response rate was higher in the gemcitabine/paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel group. Adverse events, particularly neutropenia, were more common with gemcitabine/paclitaxel combination therapy than with paclitaxel therapy alone. The economic model was run for a simulation of 1000 patients, assuming that chemotherapy continued until patients' disease progressed. This base-case analysis found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 58,876 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and 30,117 pounds per life-year gained. The model was re-run with treatment restricted to a maximum of six cycles per patient, reflecting normal practice. This yielded an ICER of 38,699 pounds per QALY gained and 20,021 pounds per life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The review of clinical effectiveness is based on data from a single RCT that has not yet been fully published. While only tentative conclusions can be drawn from this, the evidence may indicate that treatment with gemcitabine and paclitaxel confers an improved outcome for patients in terms of survival and disease progression, but at the cost of increased toxicity. An economic model developed for this review reflects high costs per QALY for this treatment combination. The base-case analysis shows high ICERs, with costs per QALY gained close to 60,000 pounds. Adopting a more realistic treatment protocol, with chemotherapy limited to a maximum of six cycles, gives a more favourable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, this was still higher than would usually be considered to be a cost-effective treatment from the NHS's perspective. Future research recommendations include an update of this review in 12-18 months' time, by which time the included RCT should be fully published. It would also be useful to compare gemcitabine with currently used treatments for metastatic breast cancer, including capecitabine and vinorelbine.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation (BTT), as a bridge to myocardial recovery (BTR) or as a long-term chronic support (LTCS) for people with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). DATA SOURCES: For the systematic review, electronic databases and bibliographies of related publications plus experts and manufacturers. For the economic evaluations, data originated from the systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, UK hospitals, device manufacturers and expert opinion. REVIEW METHODS: For the systematic review, studies were selected and assessed against a set of rigorous criteria; data were then synthesised using a narrative approach through subgroup analysis based on the indication for treatment, type of LVAD and quality of studies. The economic evaluation developed two models to evaluate the use of LVADs, first as a BTT and second as LTCS for patients suffering from ESHF. RESULTS: Sixteen studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as a BTT. Despite the poor methodological quality of the evidence, LVADs appeared beneficial compared to other treatment options (i.e. inotropic agents or usual care) or to no care (i.e. the natural history of ESHF) improving the survival of people with ESHF during the period of support and following heart transplantation. Patients supported by an LVAD appeared to have an improved functional status compared with those on usual care and experienced an improvement in their quality of life from before device implantation to the period during support. Serious adverse events are a risk for patients with an LVAD. With a scarcity of evidence directly comparing different devices, it is difficult to identify specific devices as the most clinically effective. The HeartMate LVAD is the only device that has evidence comparing it with the different alternatives, appearing to be more clinically effective than inotropic agents and usual care and as clinically effective as the Novacor device. Second generation devices, such as Jarvik 2000 and MicroMed Debakey LVADs, are early in their development but show considerable promise that should be assessed through long-term studies. Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as a BTR was limited to seven non-comparative observational studies that appeared to show that the LVADs were beneficial in providing support until myocardial recovery. It was not possible to assess whether the LVADs are more effective than other alternatives or specific devices. No evidence was found on the quality of life or functional status of patients and limited information on adverse events was reported. Six studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as an LTCS and from these it was evident that LVADs provided benefits in terms of improved survival, functional status and quality of life. Nineteen studies assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of LVADS for people with ESHF, with the majority being simple costing studies and very few studies of the cost-effectiveness of LVADs. With no relevant cost-effectiveness studies available, an economic evaluation for BTT and LTCS was developed. The economic evaluation has shown that neither LVAD indication considered, that is, BTT and LTCS, is a cost-effective use. For the HeartMate LVAD used as a BTT the cost per QALY was pound 65,242. In the less restrictive indication, LTCS, where LVADs are not just given to patients awaiting transplantation, the analysis has shown that LTCS is not cost-effective. The baseline cost per QALY of the first-generation HeartMate LVAD was pound 170,616. One- and multi-way sensitivity analysis had limited effect on the cost per QALY. A hypothetical scenario based on the cost of a second-generation MicroMed DeBakey device illustrated that a 60% improvement in survival over first-generation devices was necessary before the incremental cost-effectiveness approached pound 40,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Although the review showed that LVADs are clinically effective as a BTT with ESHF, the economic evaluation indicated that they are not cost-effective. With the limited and declining availability of donor hearts for transplantation, it appears that the future of the technology is in its use as an LTCS. Further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness of LVADs for people with ESHF, assessing patient survival, functional ability, quality of life and adverse events. Evaluations of the clinical effectiveness of LVADs should include economic evaluations, as well as data on quality of life, utilities, resources and costs. A systematic review of the epidemiology of ESHF should be undertaken to assess its potential impact.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical evidence comparing immediate angioplasty with thrombolysis, and to consider whether it would be cost-effective. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: For clinical effectiveness, a comprehensive review of randomised control trials (RCTs) was used for efficacy, and a selection of observational studies such as case series or audit data used for effectiveness in routine practice. RCTs of thrombolysis were used to assess the relative value of prehospital and hospital thrombolysis. Observational studies were used to assess the representativeness of patients in the RCTs, and to determine whether different groups have different capacity to benefit. Clinical effectiveness was synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results of all included studies and a meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of absolute clinical benefit. Consideration was given to the effect of the growing use of stents. The economic modelling adopted an NHS perspective to develop a decision-analytical model of cost-effectiveness focusing on opportunity costs over the short term (6 months). RESULTS: The results were consistent in showing an advantage of immediate angioplasty over hospital thrombolysis. The updated meta-analysis showed that mortality is reduced by about one-third, from 7.6% to 4.9% in the first 6 months, and by about the same in studies of up to 24 months. Reinfarction is reduced by over half, from 7.6% to 3.1%. Stroke is reduced by about two-thirds, from 2.3% with thrombolysis to 0.7% with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with the difference being due to haemorrhagic stroke. The need for coronary artery bypass graft is reduced by about one-third, from 13.2% to 8.4%. Caution is needed in interpreting some of the older trials, as changes such as an increase in stenting and the use of the glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitors may improve the results of PCI. There is little evidence comparing prehospital thrombolysis with immediate PCI. Research on thrombolysis followed by PCI, known as 'facilitated PCI', is underway, but results are not yet available. Trials may be done in select centres and results may not be as good in lower volume centres, or out of normal working hours. In addition, much of the marginal mortality benefit of PCI over hospital thrombolysis may be lost if door-to-balloon time were more than an hour longer than door-to-needle time. Conversely, within the initial 6 hours, the later patients present, the greater the relative advantage of PCI. Results suggest that PCI is more cost-effective than thrombolysis, providing additional benefits in health status at some extra cost. In the longer term, the cost difference is expected to be reduced because of higher recurrence and reintervention rates among those who had thrombolysis. CONCLUSIONS: If both interventions were routinely available, the economic analysis favours PCI, given the assumptions of the model. However, very few units in England could offer a routine immediate PCI service at present, and there would be considerable resource implications of setting up such services. Without a detailed survey of existing provision, it is not possible to quantify the implications, but they include both capital and revenue: an increase in catheter laboratory provision and running costs. The greatest problem would be staffing, and that would take some years to resolve. A gradual incrementalist approach based on clinical networks, with transfer to centres able to offer PCI, may be used. In rural areas, one option may be to promote an increase in prehospital thrombolysis, with PCI for thrombolysis failures. There is a need for data on the long-term consequences of treatment, the quality of life of patients after treatment, and the effects of PCI following thrombolysis failure.

Systematic review of the Sugarbaker procedure for pseudomyxoma peritonei.

BACKGROUND: Pseudomyxoma peritonei, a rare progressive disease process within the peritoneum, is characterized by an abundance of mucinous fluid; if left untreated, the condition is fatal. The aim of this article is to assess the clinical effectiveness and costs of the Sugarbaker procedure for pseudomyxoma peritonei. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature up to April 2004 was undertaken, with modelling of costs. RESULTS: Five retrospective case-series reports met the inclusion criteria. Survival after operation was approximately 95 per cent at 2 years and 60-68 per cent at 10 years, with 41-52 per cent of patients having no evidence of disease at the end of follow-up. A Monte Carlo simulation model estimated the marginal cost for one patient over a maximum of 5 years to be about pound 9700 (standard deviation pound 1300). CONCLUSION: Evidence of the effectiveness of the Sugarbaker procedure for pseudomyxoma peritonei is limited in quantity and quality, but suggests there may be some benefit for patients. The marginal cost of the operation is about pound 9700, provided that trained and experienced staff are available to perform the procedure.

Clinical effectiveness and costs of the Sugarbaker procedure for the treatment of pseudomyxoma peritonei.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review examines the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Sugarbaker procedure for treating pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) and the costs of the procedure in the UK. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, bibliographies of related papers and experts in the field were used as sources for English language studies available up to September 2002. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the Sugarbaker procedure for PMP was synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results of all included studies. The economic modelling used a Monte-Carlo simulation model populated with UK price data to estimate likely UK costs. RESULTS: Five retrospective case-series reports assessing the Sugarbaker procedure met the inclusion criteria for the review, although they were found to be of poor quality when judged against standard criteria for assessing methodological standard. There appears to be some benefit for people with PMP who undergo treatment with the Sugarbaker procedure. Commonly reported complications of the Sugarbaker procedure were anastomotic leaks, fistula formation, wound infection, small bowel perforations/obstructions and pancreatitis. One costing study of poor methodological quality and set in the USA was found. This study, together with UK unit price data and expert advice, was used to populate a Monte-Carlo simulation model to estimate the marginal cost of operating a service to provide treatment for PMP using the Sugarbaker technique rather than standard treatment. The results of the Monte-Carlo simulation model showed that the cost for one patient over a maximum of 5 years would be about 9700 British pounds, with a standard deviation of about 1300 British pounds (although costs incurred in setting up the specific service or training the staff were not included). The US study showed a ten-fold higher cost. The Monte-Carlo analysis showed that the variation around the mean was not very high. The most likely factor influencing the variation of the costs was the length of procedure. No sensitivity analysis could be done of the alternative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The economic results should be seen as merely an example of the likely marginal costs of the Sugarbaker procedure, as more information about the current alternative is required. Trained and experienced staff are required to implement the procedure and inevitably time and cost will be involved in developing the appropriate teams. Although the procedure requires some specialist equipment and maintenance, such as smoke evacuators, these should have limited effect on setting up the service. PMP is a relatively rare condition with approximately 50 new cases per year in the UK and the impact of an increase in the demand for services should be limited. Evidence is needed for the effectiveness of maximal cytoreductive surgery compared with surgical debulking, using different intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy strategies, and for the effectiveness of treatments in patients who have residual disease following maximal efforts at cytoreduction. Further research involving high-quality prospective cohort studies with economic evaluations would be valuable.