Real-world outcomes for first line next-generation hormonal agents in metastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Aim: This review aims to summarize published evidence on the real-world (RW) outcomes of abiraterone or enzalutamide in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Materials & methods: Studies reporting on RW effectiveness, safety, economic and/or health-related quality of life outcomes were identified by systematic literature review (2011-2021, incl. Embase®, MEDLINE®) and presented in a qualitative synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I or the Molinier checklist. Results: 88 studies (n = 83,427 patients) were included. Median progression-free (40 studies) and overall survival (38 studies) ranged from 3.7 to 20.9 months and 9.8 to 45 months, respectively. Survival, safety and economic outcomes were similar across individual treatments, while limited health-related quality of life evidence suggested improvements with abiraterone. Risk of bias was moderate to high. Conclusion: RW outcomes in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer remain poor despite treatment, highlighting an unmet need for new regimens. This review was supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Real-World Use of Symptomatic Treatments in Early Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia, causing progressive decline of memory, thinking, and behavior, impairing daily functioning. Early AD (eAD) includes mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD dementia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate symptomatic treatment prevalence and treatment patterns in eAD. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews were searched in November 2021 for observational studies reporting symptomatic treatment patterns in eAD. The range of patients receiving treatment was collated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) prevalence tool. Two independent reviewers screened the records, one performed data extraction and quality assessment while a second checked. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (prospective and retrospective cohorts, cross-sectional studies, and a survey) were included. Population size ranged from 23 to 2,028. Worldwide, 18 to 35% of patients diagnosed with MCI due to AD received any AChE inhibitor (three studies; n = 631), 7 to 8% memantine (two studies; n = 229), and 9% combination therapy (one study; n = 402). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 41 to 54% (two studies; n = 733). Worldwide, in mild AD dementia patients, 13 to 89% received any AChE inhibitor (six studies; n = 3,715), 1 to 21% memantine (five studies, n = 3,527), and 0.4 to 39% combination therapy (four studies, n = 3,018). Patients receiving no treatment ranged from 9 to 26% (five studies, n = 4,073). CONCLUSION: Limitations in reporting led to unclear risk of bias. The results reveal a pattern of use of symptomatic treatment in eAD beyond approved labels and highlights the opportunity for new consensus guidelines to inform clinical practice.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: 8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting. CONCLUSIONS: No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019138171.

Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are increasingly important in the assessment of the benefit-risk profile of pharmaceutical treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Interpretation of MTCs requires a clear understanding of the methods of analysis and population studied. The objectives of this work were to compare MTCs of pharmaceutical treatments for RRMS, including a detailed description of differences in populations, treatments assessed, methods used and findings; and to discuss key considerations when conducting an MTC. METHODS: Fourteen databases were searched until July 2019 to identify MTCs (published during or after 2010) in adults (at least 18 years of age) with RRMS or rapidly evolving severe RRMS treated with any form of pharmaceutical treatment. No language restriction was imposed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven MTCs assessing 21 treatments were identified. Comparison highlighted many differences in conduct and reporting between MTCs relating to the patient populations or treatments included, duration of follow-up and outcomes of interest measured. The lack of similarity between the MTCs leads to questions about variability in the robustness of analyses and makes comparisons between studies challenging. CONCLUSION: Given the importance of MTCs for healthcare decision-making, it is imperative that reporting of methods, results and assumptions is clear and transparent to allow accurate interpretation of findings. For MTCs to be relevant, the choice of outcome measures should reflect clinical practice. Combination of treatments or of outcomes measured at different points of time should be avoided, as should imputation without justification. Furthermore, all approved treatment options should be included and updates of MTCs should be conducted when data for new treatments are published.

A Systematic Review and Mixed Treatment Comparison of Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, 27 mixed-treatment comparisons (MTCs) of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis have been published. However, there has been continued evolution in the field of MTCs. Additionally, limitations in methodological approach and reporting transparency, even in the most recent publications, makes interpretation and comparison of existing studies difficult. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to estimate the efficacy and safety of DMTs at European Commission-approved doses compared with placebo in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) using MTC, and (2) to identify and address methodological challenges when performing MTC in RRMS, thereby creating a baseline for comparisons with future treatments. METHODS: Searches were completed in 14 databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CDSR and DARE, from inception to June 2018 to identify published or unpublished prospective, randomised controlled trials of all European Union-approved DMTs or DMTs expected to be approved in the near future in RRMS or rapidly-evolving severe RRMS. No language or date restrictions were applied. Studies were included in the MTC if they were judged to have sufficiently similar characteristics, based on the following: patient age; proportion of male participants; Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score; duration of disease; number of relapses prior to enrolment and proportion of previously treated patients. Background information from the included studies, as well as effect size and confidence intervals (where relevant) of defined outcomes were extracted. Reporting of the MTC was consistent with the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) network meta-analysis guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 33 studies were included in the MTC. Annualised relapse rate (ARR 28 trials) was significantly reduced in all treatments compared with placebo. Alemtuzumab had the highest probability (63%) of being the most effective treatment in terms of ARR compared with placebo (rate ratio [RR] 0.28, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.21-0.38), followed by natalizumab (30% probability; RR 0.32, 95% CrI 0.23-0.43). The risk of 3- and 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP3M, 13 trials; CDP6M, 14 trials) were similar; CDP6M was significantly reduced for alemtuzumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.365; 95% CrI 0.165-0.725), ocrelizumab (HR 0.405, 95% CrI 0.188-0.853) and natalizumab (HR 0.459, 95% CrI 0.252-0.840) relative to placebo. There were no significant differences in the odds of serious adverse events (SAEs, 6 trials) between any treatment and placebo. The results of the MTC were limited by the lack of studies reporting direct comparisons between the included treatments and by heterogeneous reporting of key outcome data. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses confirmed the benefit of all DMTs in terms of relapse rate compared with placebo with a comparable rate of SAEs for the DMTs that could be included in the network. The rigor and transparency of reporting in this study provide a benchmark for comparisons with future new agents.

Impact of tumor heterogeneity and tissue sampling for genetic mutation testing: a systematic review and post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to identify guidelines to assist systematic reviewers or clinical researchers in identifying sampling bias due to tumor heterogeneity (TH) in solid cancers assayed for somatic mutations. We also assessed current reporting standards to determine the impact of TH on sample bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review searching 13 databases (to January 2019) to identify guidelines. A post hoc analysis was performed using 12 prostate tumor somatic mutation data sets from a previous systematic review to assess reporting on TH. RESULTS: Searches identified 2,085 records. No formal guidelines were identified. Forty publications contained incidental recommendations across five major themes: using multiple tumor samples (n = 29), sample purity thresholds (n = 14), using specific sequencing methods (n = 8), using liquid biopsies (n = 4), and microdissection (n = 4). In post hoc analyses, 50% (6 of 12) clearly reported pathology methods. Forty-two percent (5 of 12) did not report pathology results. Forty-two percent (5 of 12) confirmed the pathology of the sample by direct diagnosis rather than inference. Forty-two percent (5 of 12) used multiple samples per patient. Fifty-eight percent (7 of 12) reported on tumor purity (reported ranges 10% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: As precision medicine progresses to the clinic, guidelines are required to help evidence-based decision makers understand how TH may impact sample bias. Authors need to clearly report pathology methods and results and tumor purity methods and results.

Effect of DNA damage response mutations on prostate cancer prognosis: a systematic review.

The prognosis of men with prostate cancer (PC) with mutations in DNA damage response (DDR) genes undergoing different treatments is unclear. This systematic review compared clinical outcomes in PC patients with DDR mutations (DDR+) versus no mutations (DDR-). 14 resources plus gray literature were searched for studies in PC and subgroups (castration-resistant PC, metastatic PC and metastatic castration-resistant PC) by DDR gene (ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C) mutation status. From 11,648 records, 26 studies were included. For mCRPC, six studies reported comparative efficacy for key outcomes. Improvements in several clinical outcomes were observed for DDR+ (vs DDR-) after PARP inhibitor therapy or immunotherapy. DDR+ PC patients may have improved outcomes depending on the treatment they undergo.

A systematic review of the prevalence of DNA damage response gene mutations in prostate cancer.

Several ongoing international prostate cancer (PC) clinical trials are exploring therapies that target the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. This systematic review summarizes the prevalence of DDR mutation carriers in the unselected (general) PC and familial PC populations. A total of 11 electronic databases, 10 conference proceedings, and grey literature sources were searched from their inception to December 2017. Studies reporting the prevalence of somatic and/or germline DDR mutations were summarized. Metastatic PC (mPC), castration­resistant PC (CRPC) and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) subgroups were included. A total of 11,648 records were retrieved, and 80 studies (103 records) across all PC populations were included; 59 records were of unselected PC and 13 records of familial PC. Most data were available for DDR panels (n=12 studies), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM; n=13), breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)1 (n=14) and BRCA2 (n=20). ATM, BRCA2 and partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) had the highest mutation rates (≥4%). Median prevalence rates for DDR germline mutations were 18.6% in PC (range, 17.2­19%; three studies, n=1,712), 11.6% in mPC (range, 11.4­11.8%; two studies, n=1,261) and 8.3% in mCRPC (range, 7.5­9.1%; two studies, n=738). Median prevalence rates for DDR somatic mutations were 10.7% in PC (range, 4.9­22%; three studies, n=680), 13.2% in mPC (range, 10­16.4%; two studies, n=105) and not reported (NR) in mCRPC. The prevalence of DDR germline and/or somatic mutations was 27% in PC (one study, n=221), 22.67% in mCRPC (one study, n=150) and NR in mPC. In familial PC, median mutation prevalence was 12.1% (range, 7.3­16.9%) for germline DDR (two studies, n=315) and 3.7% (range, 1.3­7.9%) for BRCA2 (six studies, n=945). In total, 88% of studies were at a high risk of bias. The prevalence of DDR gene mutations in PC varied widely within somatic subgroups depending on study size, genetic screening techniques, DDR mutation definition and PC diagnosis; somatic and/or germline DDR mutation prevalence was in the range of 23­27% in PC. These findings support DDR mutation testing for all patients with PC (including those with mCRPC). With the advent of the latest clinical practice PC guidelines highlighting the importance of DDR mutation screening, and ongoing mCRPC clinical trials evaluating DDR mutation­targeted drugs, future larger epidemiological studies are warranted to further quantify the international burden of DDR mutations in PC.

Clinically inappropriate post hoc exclusion of study participants from test accuracy calculations: the ROMA score, an example from a recent NICE diagnostic assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how the definition of the target condition and post hoc exclusion of participants can limit the usefulness of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: We used data from a systematic review, conducted for a NICE diagnostic assessment of risk scores to inform secondary care decisions about specialist referral for women with suspected ovarian cancer, to explore how the definition of the target condition and post hoc exclusion of participants can limit the usefulness of diagnostic accuracy studies to inform clinical practice. RESULTS: Fourteen of the studies evaluated the ROMA score, nine used Abbott ARCHITECT tumour marker assays, five used Roche Elecsys. The summary sensitivity estimate (Abbott ARCHITECT) was highest, 95.1% (95% CI: 92.4 to 97.1%), where analyses excluded participants with borderline tumours or malignancies other than epithelial ovarian cancer and lowest, 75.0% (95% CI: 60.4 to 86.4%), where all participants were included. Results were similar for Roche Elecsys tumour marker assays. Although the number of patients involved was small, data from studies that reported diagnostic accuracy for both the whole study population and with post hoc exclusion of those with borderline or non-epithelial malignancies suggested that patients with borderline or malignancies other than epithelial ovarian cancer accounts for between 50 and 85% of false-negative ROMA scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the potential consequences of inappropriate population selection in diagnostic studies; women with non-epithelial ovarian cancers or non-ovarian primaries, and those borderline tumours may be disproportionately represented among those with false negative, 'low risk' ROMA scores. These observations highlight the importance of giving careful consideration to how the target condition has been defined when assessing whether the diagnostic accuracy estimates reported in clinical studies will translate into clinical utility in real-world settings.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

A systematic review of the validity of patient derived xenograft (PDX) models: the implications for translational research and personalised medicine.

Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models are increasingly being used in oncology drug development because they offer greater predictive value than traditional cell line models. Using novel tools to critique model validity and reliability we performed a systematic review to identify all original publications describing the derivation of PDX models of colon, prostate, breast and lung cancer. Validity was defined as the ability to recapitulate the disease of interest. The study protocol was registered with the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES). Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE and Pubmed up to July 2017. A narrative data synthesis was performed. We identified 105 studies of model validations; 29 for breast, 29 for colon, 25 for lung, 23 for prostate and 4 for multiple tissues. 133 studies were excluded because they did not perform any validation experiments despite deriving a PDX. Only one study reported following the ARRIVE guidelines; developed to improve the standard of reporting for animal experimentation. Remarkably, half of all breast (52%) and prostate (50%) studies were judged to have high concern, in contrast to 16% of colon and 28% of lung studies. The validation criteria that most commonly failed (evidence to the contrary) were: tissue of origin not proven and histology of the xenograft not comparable to the parental tumour. Overall, most studies were categorized as unclear because one or more validation conditions were not reported, or researchers failed to provide data for a proportion of their models. For example, failure to demonstrate tissue of origin, response to standard of care agents and to exclude development of lymphoma. Validation tools have the potential to improve reproducibility, reduce waste in research and increase the success of translational studies.

Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in UK women and can be difficult to diagnose, particularly in the early stages. Risk-scoring can help to guide referral to specialist centres. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of risk scores to guide referral decisions for women with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care. METHODS: Twenty-one databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception to November 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. The meta-analysis using weighted averages and random-effects modelling was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The cost-effectiveness analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with different risk-scoring methods, and subsequent care pathways. Modelling comprised a decision tree and a Markov model. The decision tree was used to model short-term outcomes and the Markov model was used to estimate the long-term costs and QALYs associated with treatment and progression. RESULTS: Fifty-one diagnostic cohort studies were included in the systematic review. The Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) score did not offer any advantage over the Risk of Malignancy Index 1 (RMI 1). Patients with borderline tumours or non-ovarian primaries appeared to account for disproportionately high numbers of false-negative, low-risk ROMA scores. (Confidential information has been removed.) To achieve similar levels of sensitivity to the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group's simple ultrasound rules, a very low RMI 1 decision threshold (25) would be needed; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the RMI 1 at this threshold were 94.9% (95% CI 91.5% to 97.2%) and 51.1% (95% CI 47.0% to 55.2%), respectively. In the base-case analysis, RMI 1 (threshold of 250) was the least effective [16.926 life-years (LYs), 13.820 QALYs] and the second cheapest (£5669). The IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules (inconclusive, assumed to be malignant) were the cheapest (£5667) and the second most effective [16.954 LYs, 13.841 QALYs], dominating RMI 1. The ADNEX model (threshold of 10%), costing £5699, was the most effective (16.957 LYs, 13.843 QALYs), and compared with the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules, resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £15,304 per QALY gained. At thresholds of up to £15,304 per QALY gained, the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules are cost-effective; the ADNEX model (threshold of 10%) is cost-effective for higher thresholds. LIMITATIONS: Information on the downstream clinical consequences of risk-scoring was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Both the ADNEX model and the IOTA group's simple ultrasound rules may offer increased sensitivity relative to current practice (RMI 1); that is, more women with malignant tumours would be referred to a specialist multidisciplinary team, although more women with benign tumours would also be referred. The cost-effectiveness model supports prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity. Further research is needed on the clinical consequences of risk-scoring. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016053326. FUNDING DETAILS: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events After Myocardial Infarction: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of ticagrelor (Brilique®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily (BID) in combination with low-dose aspirin [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)] compared with ASA only for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and who are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned as the evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), the ERG report and the NICE guidance produced by the appraisal committee (AC) for the use of ticagrelor in England and Wales. The ERG critically reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS. The systematic review conducted as part of the CS identified one randomised controlled trial (RCT), PEGASUS-TIMI 54. This trial reported the time to first occurrence of any event from the composite of cardiovascular death, MI and stroke as the primary outcome (hazard ratio 0.84 ticagrelor 60 mg BID vs. placebo, 95% confidence interval 0.74-0.95). The population addressed in the CS was a subgroup of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial population, i.e. the 'base-case' population, which comprised patients who had experienced an MI between 1 and 2 years ago, whereas the full trial population included patients who had experienced an MI between 1 and 3 years ago. While the ERG believed the findings of this RCT to be robust, doubts concerning the applicability of the trial to UK patients were raised. The company submitted an individual patient simulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg BID + ASA versus ASA only. Parametric time-to-event models were used to estimate the time to first and subsequent (cardiovascular) events, time to treatment discontinuation and time to adverse events. The company's base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £20,098 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The main issues surrounding the cost effectiveness of ticagrelor 60 mg BID + ASA were the use of parametric time-to-event models estimated based on the full trial population instead of being fitted to the 'label' population (the 'label' population comprised the 'base-case' population and patients who started ticagrelor 60 mg BID within 1 year of previous adenosine diphosphate inhibitor treatment), the incorrect implementation of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) of the individual patient simulation, and simplifications of the model structure that may have biased the health benefits and costs estimations of the intervention and comparator. The ERG believed the use of the full trial population to inform the parametric time-to-event models was not appropriate because the 'label' population was the main focus of the scope and CS. The ERG could not investigate the magnitude of the bias introduced by this assumption. The PSA of the individual patient simulation provided unreliable probabilistic results and underestimated the uncertainty surrounding the results because it was based on a single patient. The ERG used the cohort simulation presented in the cost-effectiveness model to perform its base-case and additional analyses and to obtain probabilistic results. The ERG amended the company cost-effectiveness model, which resulted in an ERG base-case ICER of £24,711 per QALY gained. In its final guidance, the AC recommended treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg BID + low-dose ASA for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in adults who have had an MI and are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events.

Trifluridine-Tipiracil for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Servier, the company manufacturing trifluridine and tipiracil (T/T; trade name: Lonsurf®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of T/T compared with best supportive care (BSC) for metastatic colorectal cancer (third-line or later). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper presents a summary of the company's submission (CS), the ERG report and the development of the NICE guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the appraisal committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of T/T based upon the CS. In the CS, pooled evidence of two trials (a phase II trial and RECOURSE) showed that T/T resulted in a significant increase in overall survival [OS; hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78] and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.40-0.53). The AC considered the survival benefit of T/T clinically meaningful although relatively small. The ERG highlighted that none of the participants in the phase II trial and approximately half of the RECOURSE participants (394 of 800) were from Europe, which might limit the applicability of the study findings to the NHS. Moreover, the ERG's critical assessment of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns that resulted in 11 adjustments to the company's base-case analysis. The ERG adjustments that had the largest impact were using the RECOURSE trial data only (instead of the pooled evidence), fixing errors and violations and using the utilities from the CORRECT trial (identified in the literature review) only. The ERG preferred to use the RECOURSE trial data only given the suboptimal methodology used by the company to pool the evidence. However, since there were no fundamental arguments to prevent the two trials from being pooled, the ERG also presented its base-case analysis based on the pooled effectiveness estimates. The company base-case resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £44,032 per QALY gained while the ERG base-case resulted in ICERs of £52,695 and £49,392 per QALY gained based on the RECOURSE trial only and pooled evidence, respectively. Since the AC concluded that the most plausible ICER was £49,392 per QALY gained, and that T/T meets end-of-life criteria, T/T was recommended as a cost effective use of NHS resources.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance.

BACKGROUND: This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 µg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9-95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 µg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6-80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 µg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42016037723.

A systematic review of the asymmetric inheritance of cellular organelles in eukaryotes: A critique of basic science validity and imprecision.

We performed a systematic review to identify all original publications describing the asymmetric inheritance of cellular organelles in normal animal eukaryotic cells and to critique the validity and imprecision of the evidence. Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE and Pubmed up to November 2015. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction and validity were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Study quality was assessed using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool, for animal studies and by developing validity tools for the experimental model, organelle markers and imprecision. A narrative data synthesis was performed. We identified 31 studies (34 publications) of the asymmetric inheritance of organelles after mitotic or meiotic division. Studies for the asymmetric inheritance of centrosomes (n = 9); endosomes (n = 6), P granules (n = 4), the midbody (n = 3), mitochondria (n = 3), proteosomes (n = 2), spectrosomes (n = 2), cilia (n = 2) and endoplasmic reticulum (n = 2) were identified. Asymmetry was defined and quantified by variable methods. Assessment of the statistical reliability of the results indicated only two studies (7%) were judged to have low concern, the majority of studies (77%) were 'unclear' and five (16%) were judged to have 'high concerns'; the main reasons were low technical repeats (<10). Assessment of model validity indicated that the majority of studies (61%) were judged to be valid, ten studies (32%) were unclear and two studies (7%) were judged to have 'high concerns'; both described 'stem cells' without providing experimental evidence to confirm this (pluripotency and self-renewal). Assessment of marker validity indicated that no studies had low concern, most studies were unclear (96.5%), indicating there were insufficient details to judge if the markers were appropriate. One study had high concern for marker validity due to the contradictory results of two markers for the same organelle. For most studies the validity and imprecision of results could not be confirmed. In particular, data were limited due to a lack of reporting of interassay variability, sample size calculations, controls and functional validation of organelle markers. An evaluation of 16 systematic reviews containing cell assays found that only 50% reported adherence to PRISMA or ARRIVE reporting guidelines and 38% reported a formal risk of bias assessment. 44% of the reviews did not consider how relevant or valid the models were to the research question. 75% reviews did not consider how valid the markers were. 69% of reviews did not consider the impact of the statistical reliability of the results. Future systematic reviews in basic or preclinical research should ensure the rigorous reporting of the statistical reliability of the results in addition to the validity of the methods. Increased awareness of the importance of reporting guidelines and validation tools is needed for the scientific community.

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC. RESULTS: We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population. LIMITATIONS: Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

ImmunoCAP® ISAC and Microtest for multiplex allergen testing in people with difficult to manage allergic disease: a systematic review and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Allergy is a form of immune-mediated exaggerated sensitivity (hypersensitivity) to a substance that is either inhaled, swallowed, injected or comes into contact with the skin. Foreign substances that provoke allergies are called allergens. It has been claimed that multiplex allergen testing may help in diagnosing the cause of symptoms in patients with an unclear cause of allergy or who are allergic to more than one substance. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate multiplex allergen testing [devices that can measure the presence of multiple immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies in a patient's blood at the same time], by assessing (1) clinical effectiveness (allergy symptoms, incidence of acute exacerbations, mortality, adverse events of testing and treatment, health-care presentations or admissions, health-related quality of life); (2) effects on treatment (diet, immunotherapy medications, other potential testing); (3) any additional diagnostic information provided by multiplex allergen testing; and (4) cost-effectiveness (cost of different assessment strategies). METHODS: Fifteen databases were searched from 2005 to April 2015, including MEDLINE (via OvidSp), MEDLINE In-Process Citations, MEDLINE Daily Update, PubMed (National Library of Medicine), EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Science Citation Index (SCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), BIOSIS Previews, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA programme, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); supplementary searches of conference proceedings and trials registries were performed. Review methods followed published guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate published tools or a review-specific tool designed by the project team. Studies were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Owing to a lack of data on the clinical effectiveness of multiplex allergen testing, no long-term cost-effectiveness model was developed. A conceptual model structure was developed and cost analyses were performed to examine the short-term costs of various possible diagnostic pathways. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review. The very limited available data indicated that the addition of multiplex allergen testing [ImmunoCAP(®) Immuno Solid-phase Allergen Chip (ISAC), Thermo Fisher Scientific/Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden] to standard diagnostic work-up can change the clinicians' views on the diagnosis, management and treatment of patients. There was some indication that the use of ImmunoCAP ISAC testing may be useful to guide decisions on the discontinuation of restrictive diets, the content of allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) prescriptions, and whether or not patients should receive SIT. However, none of the studies that we identified reported any information on clinical outcomes subsequent to changes in treatment or management. There was some evidence that ImmunoCAP ISAC may be useful for discriminating allergens that are structurally similar and are recognised by the same IgE antibody (cross-immunoreactive). No data were available for Microtest (Microtest Matrices Ltd, London, UK). Detailed cost analyses suggested that multiplex allergen testing would have to result in a substantial reduction of the proportions of patients receiving single IgE testing and oral food challenge tests in order to be cost-saving in the short term. CONCLUSIONS: No recommendations for service provision can be made based on the analyses included in this report. It is suggested that a consensus-based protocol for the use of multiplex allergen testing be developed. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the proposed protocol should then be assessed by comparing long-term clinical and quality of life outcomes and resource use in patients managed using the protocol with those managed using a standard diagnostic pathway. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019739. FUNDING: This project was a Diagnostic Assessment Report commissioned by the NIHR HTA programme on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. RESULTS: A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.46 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.