Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. Objectives: We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. Design: We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. Setting: NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Participants: Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Interventions: Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Main outcome measures: Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. Results: We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Limitations: Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Future work: Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who are admitted to hospital are at risk of blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Patients are often given low doses of blood-thinning drugs to reduce this risk. However, these drugs can cause side effects, such as bleeding. Hospitals currently use complex risk assessment models (risk scores, which usually include patient, disease, mobility and intervention factors) to determine the individual risk of blood clots and identify people most likely to benefit from blood-thinning drugs. There are a lot of different risk scores and we do not know which one is best. We also do not know how these scores compare to each other or whether using scores to decide who should get blood-thinning drugs provides good value for money to the NHS. We reviewed all previous studies of risk scores. We found that they did not predict blood clots very well and we could not recommend one score over another. We then created a mathematical model to simulate the use of blood-thinning drugs in people admitted to hospital. The model suggested that giving blood-thinning drugs to everyone who could have them would probably provide the best value for money, in medical patients. Our findings were the same, but less certain, for surgical patients. We also collected information from four NHS hospitals to explore possibilities for future research. Our work showed that routinely collected electronic data on blood clots and bleeding events is not very accurate and that using different scores could result in variable use of blood-thinning medications. Our findings suggest that it may be better value to the NHS and better for patients if we were to offer blood-thinning medications to everyone on admission to hospital, without using any risk score. However, this approach needs further research to ensure it is safe and effective. Such research would not be able to rely on routine electronic data to identify blood clots or bleeding events, in isolation.

Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives: To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results: The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations: The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions: Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Women who are pregnant or who have given birth in the previous 6 weeks are at increased risk of developing blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Small doses of blood thinners given by injection are safe in pregnancy and can reduce the risk of blood clots, but they can slightly increase the risk of bleeding. Healthcare professionals use risk assessment tools to decide if a woman is at high risk of blood clots and should be offered blood thinners. We wanted to find out what research would be useful to help them make better decisions. We reviewed previous research to establish which risk assessment tools are best at predicting who will have a blood clot. We then created a mathematical model to predict what would happen when using different risk assessment tools to decide who should be offered blood thinners, both during pregnancy and after giving birth. We found that there was a lot of uncertainty about which women should be offered blood thinners. This was mainly because there have only been a few small studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment in pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. We estimated the value of future studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment, in groups of women with different risk factors, by predicting what information we would gain and how this would be used to improve decisions about using blood thinners. To find out whether these studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood thinners and surveyed healthcare professionals. We found that a study in obese women who have recently given birth would have substantial value and may be more acceptable than a study in pregnant women with a previous blood clot.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for medical inpatients: decision analysis modelling study.

Objective: To determine the balance of costs, risks, and benefits for different thromboprophylaxis strategies for medical patients during hospital admission. Design: Decision analysis modelling study. Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Population: Eligible adult medical inpatients, excluding patients in critical care and pregnant women. Interventions: Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (low molecular weight heparin) for all medical inpatients, thromboprophylaxis for none, and thromboprophylaxis given to higher risk inpatients according to risk assessment models (Padua, Caprini, IMPROVE, Intermountain, Kucher, Geneva, and Rothberg) previously validated in medical cohorts. Main outcome measures: Lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were assessed from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services in England. Other outcomes assessed were incidence and treatment of venous thromboembolism, major bleeds including intracranial haemorrhage, chronic thromboembolic complications, and overall survival. Results: Offering thromboprophylaxis to all medical inpatients had a high probability (>99%) of being the most cost effective strategy (at a threshold of £20 000 (€23 440; $25 270) per QALY) in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when applying performance data from the Padua risk assessment model, which was typical of that observed across several risk assessment models in a medical inpatient cohort. Thromboprophylaxis for all medical inpatients was estimated to result in 0.0552 additional QALYs (95% credible interval 0.0209 to 0.1111) while generating cost savings of £28.44 (-£47 to £105) compared with thromboprophylaxis for none. No other risk assessment model was more cost effective than thromboprophylaxis for all medical inpatients when assessed in deterministic analysis. Risk based thromboprophylaxis was found to have a high (76.6%) probability of being the most cost effective strategy only when assuming a risk assessment model with very high sensitivity is available (sensitivity 99.9% and specificity 23.7% v base case sensitivity 49.3% and specificity 73.0%). Conclusions: Offering pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to all eligible medical inpatients appears to be the most cost effective strategy. To be cost effective, any risk assessment model would need to have a very high sensitivity resulting in widespread thromboprophylaxis in all patients except those at the very lowest risk, who could potentially avoid prophylactic anticoagulation during their hospital stay.

Estimating the value of future research into thromboprophylaxis for women during pregnancy and after delivery: a value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment models (RAMs) are used to select women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy and the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the value of potential future studies that would reduce the decision uncertainty associated with offering thromboprophylaxis according to available RAMs in the following groups: high-risk antepartum women (eg, prior VTE), unselected postpartum women, and postpartum women with risk factors (obesity or cesarean delivery). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to simulate clinical outcomes, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life-years for different thromboprophylaxis strategies, including thromboprophylaxis for all, thromboprophylaxis for none, and RAM-based thromboprophylaxis. The expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty. The value of future research studies was estimated using expected value of sample information analysis. Costs were assessed from a health and social services perspective. RESULTS: The expected value of perfect information analysis identified high decision uncertainty for high-risk antepartum women (£21.8 million) and obese postpartum women (£13.4 million), which was largely attributable to uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in reducing VTE. A randomized controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis compared with none in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value (£2.8 million; 300 participants per arm). A trial in women with previous VTE would have higher value but would be less acceptable. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on estimating the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women with additional risk factors who have not had a previous VTE.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation. Setting: Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings. Methods: Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee. Results: The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations: No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified. Conclusions: The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies. Future work: Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is an infectious disease that can cause death and long-term ill-health. Treatments exist that can be provided in hospital to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. Treatments also exist which can be provided in the community for people at high risk of needing to be admitted to hospital to reduce the number of admissions and to reduce the number of deaths from coronavirus disease 2019. However, the value for money of these treatments has not been estimated. We took the clinical effectiveness of nine treatments from published literature sources and built a model that estimated the value for money of six treatments compared with care without these treatments. Three treatments were excluded due to confidential prices. The results of the model showed that many treatments in a hospital setting had estimates of cost-effectiveness that would normally be seen to be good value for money using the thresholds published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. The same was true for some treatments in a community setting. However, it is also possible that these treatments are not good value for money. The benefit of the drugs and value for money is highly uncertain as studies trying to estimate the gain have been done with (1) previous variants of the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 being widespread, (2) where the proportion of people who have had vaccinations or who had previously had coronavirus disease 2019 is low and (3) where standard treatment was that when coronavirus disease 2019 was first identified, and not the drugs used now. Because of these differences, and the unknown price of some interventions, we cannot confidently say which (if any) treatments help patients the most, or which treatment represents the best value for money. Further research, in current conditions, would improve the accuracy of our answers.

Decision-analysis modeling of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for surgical inpatients using variable risk assessment models or other strategies.

BACKGROUND: Surgical inpatients are at a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can be life-threatening or result in chronic complications. Thromboprophylaxis reduces the VTE risk but incurs costs and may increase bleeding risk. Risk assessment models (RAMs) are currently used to target thromboprophylaxis at high-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the balance of cost, risk, and benefit for different thromboprophylaxis strategies in adult surgical inpatients, excluding patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery or were under critical care and pregnant women. METHODS: Decision analytic modeling was performed to estimate the following outcomes for alternative thromboprophylaxis strategies: thromboprophylaxis usage; VTE incidence and treatment; major bleeding; chronic thromboembolic complications; and overall survival. Strategies compared were as follows: no thromboprophylaxis; thromboprophylaxis for all; and thromboprophylaxis given according to RAMs (Caprini and Pannucci). Thromboprophylaxis is assumed to be given for the duration of hospitalization. The model evaluates lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within England's health and social care services. RESULTS: Thromboprophylaxis for all surgical inpatients had a 70% probability of being the most cost-effective strategy (at a £20 000 per QALY threshold). RAM-based prophylaxis would be the most cost-effective strategy if a RAM with a higher sensitivity (99.9%) were available for surgical inpatients. QALY gains were mainly due to reduced postthrombotic complications. The optimal strategy was sensitive to several other factors such as the risk of VTE, bleeding and postthrombotic syndrome, duration of prophylaxis, and patient age. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis for all eligible surgical inpatients seemed to be the most cost-effective strategy. Default recommendations for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, with the potential to opt-out, may be superior to a complex risk-based opt-in approach.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and in the puerperium: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). DESIGN: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221094.

Individual risk factors predictive of major trauma in pre-hospital injured older patients: a systematic review.

Background: Older adults with major trauma are frequently under-triaged, increasing the risk of preventable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review was to identify which individual risk factors and predictors are likely to increase the risk of major trauma in elderly patients presenting to emergency medical services (EMS) following injury, to inform future elderly triage tool development. Methods: Several electronic databases (including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to February 2021. Prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined a prognostic factor (often termed predictor or risk factor) for, or diagnostic test to identify, major trauma. Selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise the findings. Results: Nine studies, all performed in US trauma networks, met review inclusion criteria. Vital signs (Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate and shock index with specific elderly cut-off points), EMS provider judgement, comorbidities and certain crash scene variables (other occupants injured, occupant not independently mobile and head-on collision) were identified as significant pre-hospital variables associated with major trauma in the elderly in multi-variable analyses. Heart rate and anticoagulant were not significant predictors. Included studies were at moderate or high risk of bias, with applicability concerns secondary to selected study populations. Conclusions: Existing pre-hospital major trauma triage tools could be optimised for elderly patients by including elderly-specific physiology thresholds. Future work should focus on more relevant reference standards and further evaluation of novel elderly relevant triage tool variables and thresholds.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital-acquired thrombosis accounts for a large proportion of all venous thromboembolism (VTE), with significant morbidity and mortality. This subset of VTE can be reduced through accurate risk assessment and tailored pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. This systematic review aimed to determine the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) for predicting VTE in patients admitted to hospital. METHODS: A systematic search was performed across five electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to February 2021. All primary validation studies were eligible if they examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in hospitalised inpatients. Two or more reviewers independently undertook study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) tool. We used narrative synthesis to summarise the findings. RESULTS: Among 6355 records, we included 51 studies, comprising 24 unique validated RAMs. The majority of studies included hospital inpatients who required medical care (21 studies), were undergoing surgery (15 studies) or receiving care for trauma (4 studies). The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Caprini RAM (22 studies), Padua prediction score (16 studies), IMPROVE models (8 studies), the Geneva risk score (4 studies) and the Kucher score (4 studies). C-statistics varied markedly between studies and between models, with no one RAM performing obviously better than other models. Across all models, C-statistics were often weak (<0.7), sometimes good (0.7-0.8) and a few were excellent (>0.8). Similarly, estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 12.0% to 100% and specificity estimates ranged from 7.2% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Available data suggest that RAMs have generally weak predictive accuracy for VTE. There is insufficient evidence and too much heterogeneity to recommend the use of any particular RAM. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: Steve Goodacre, Abdullah Pandor, Katie Sworn, Daniel Horner, Mark Clowes. A systematic review of venous thromboembolism RAMs for hospital inpatients. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020165778. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=165778.

Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools for identifying major trauma in elderly injured patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with major trauma are frequently undertriaged, increasing the risk of preventable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of prehospital triage tools to identify suspected elderly trauma patients in need of specialized trauma care. METHODS: Several electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to February 2019. Prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined prehospital triage tools as index tests (either scored theoretically using observed patient variables or evaluated according to actual paramedic transport decisions) compared with a reference standard for major trauma in elderly adults who require transport by paramedics following injury. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with 11 studies examining theoretical accuracy, three evaluating real-life transport decisions, and one assessing both (of 21 individual index tests). Estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 19.8% to 95.5% and 57.7% to 83.3% for theoretical accuracy and real life triage performance, respectively. Specificity results were similarly diverse ranging from 17.0% to 93.1% for theoretical accuracy and 46.3% to 78.9% for actual paramedic decisions. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. There were no obvious differences between different triage tools, and findings did not appear to vary systematically with major trauma prevalence, age, alternative reference standards, study designs, or setting. CONCLUSION: Existing prehospital triage tools may not accurately identify elderly patients with serious injury. Future work should focus on more relevant reference standards, establishing the best trade-off between undertriage and overtriage, optimizing the role prehospital clinician judgment, and further developing geriatric specific triage variables and thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Expanding the UK Newborn Bloodspot Screening Programme to Include Five Additional Inborn Errors of Metabolism.

Glutaric aciduria type 1, homocystinuria, isovaleric acidaemia, long-chain hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and maple syrup urine disease are all inborn errors of metabolism that can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. This evaluation was undertaken in 2013 to provide evidence to the UK National Screening Committee for the cost-effectiveness of including these five conditions in the UK Newborn Bloodspot Screening Programme. A decision-tree model with lifetable estimates of outcomes was built with the model structure and parameterisation informed by a systematic review and expert clinical judgment. A National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective was used, and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 1.5%. Uncertainty in the results was explored using expected value of perfect information analysis methods together with a sensitivity analysis using the screened incidence rate in the UK from 2014 to 2018. The model estimates that screening for all the conditions is more effective and cost saving when compared to not screening for each of the conditions, and the results were robust to the updated incidence rates. The key uncertainties included the sensitivity and specificity of the screening test and the estimated costs and QALYs.

Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with temporary lower limb immobilization after injury: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis has the potential to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) following lower limb immobilization resulting from injury. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis, compare different agents, and identify any factors associated with effectiveness. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized trials reporting VTE or bleeding outcomes that compared thromboprophylactic agents with each other or to no pharmacological prophylaxis, for this indication. An NMA was undertaken for each outcome or agent used, and a series of study-level network meta-regressions examined whether population characteristics, type of injury, treatment of injury, or duration of thromboprophylaxis were associated with treatment effect. RESULTS: Data from 6857 participants across 13 randomized trials showed that, compared with no treatment, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the risk of any VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.37-0.71), clinically detected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR: 0.39; 95% CrI: 0.12-0.94) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR: 0.16; 95% CrI: 0.01-0.74), whereas fondaparinux reduced the risk of any VTE (OR: 0.13; 95% CrI: 0.05-0.30) and clinically detected DVT (OR: 0.10; 95% CrI: 0.01-0.86), with inconclusive results for PE (OR: 0.40; 95% CrI: 0.01-7.53). CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis with either fondaparinux or LMWH appears to reduce the odds of both asymptomatic and clinically detected VTE in people with temporary lower limb immobilization following an injury. Treatment effects vary by outcome and are not always conclusive. We were unable to identify any treatment effect modifiers other than thromboprophylactic agent used.

Thromboprophylaxis in lower limb immobilisation after injury (TiLLI).

Venous thromboembolic disease is a major global cause of morbidity and mortality. An estimated 10 million episodes are diagnosed yearly; over half of these episodes are provoked by hospital admission/procedures and result in significant loss of disability adjusted life years. Temporary lower limb immobilisation after injury is a significant contributor to the overall burden of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Existing evidence suggests that pharmacological prophylaxis could reduce overall VTE event rates in these patients, but the proportional reduction of symptomatic events remains unclear. Recent studies have used different pharmacological agents, dosing regimens and outcome measures. Consequently, there is wide variation in thromboprophylaxis strategies, and international guidelines continue to offer conflicting advice for clinicians. In this review, we provide a summary of recent evidence assessing both the clinical and cost effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis in patients with temporary immobilisation after injury. We also examine the evidence supporting stratified thromboprophylaxis and the validity of widely used risk assessment methods.

Different strategies for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for lower-limb immobilisation after injury: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis can reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during lower-limb immobilisation, but it is unclear whether or not this translates into meaningful health benefit, justifies the risk of bleeding or is cost-effective. Risk assessment models (RAMs) could select higher-risk individuals for thromboprophylaxis. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies for providing thromboprophylaxis to people with lower-limb immobilisation caused by injury and to identify priorities for future research. DATA SOURCES: Ten electronic databases and research registers (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched from inception to May 2017, and this was supplemented by hand-searching reference lists and contacting experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in lower-limb immobilisation and to identify any study of risk factors or RAMs for VTE in lower-limb immobilisation. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. A network meta-analysis was undertaken for each outcome in the effectiveness review and the results of risk-prediction studies were presented descriptively. A modified Delphi survey was undertaken to identify risk predictors supported by expert consensus. Decision-analytic modelling was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of different thromboprophylaxis strategies from the perspectives of the NHS and Personal Social Services. RESULTS: Data from 6857 participants across 13 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the risk of any VTE [odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.37 to 0.71], clinically detected deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.12 to 0.99) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.17, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.88). Thromboprophylaxis with fondaparinux (Arixtra®, Aspen Pharma Trading Ltd, Dublin, Ireland) reduced the risk of any VTE (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.05 to 0.30) and clinically detected DVT (OR 0.10, 95% CrI 0.01 to 0.94), but the effect on PE was inconclusive (OR 0.47, 95% CrI 0.01 to 9.54). Estimates of the risk of major bleeding with thromboprophylaxis were inconclusive owing to the small numbers of events. Fifteen studies of risk factors were identified, but only age (ORs 1.05 to 3.48), and injury type were consistently associated with VTE. Six studies of RAMs were identified, but only two reported prognostic accuracy data for VTE, based on small numbers of patients. Expert consensus was achieved for 13 risk predictors in lower-limb immobilisation due to injury. Modelling showed that thromboprophylaxis for all is effective (0.015 QALY gain, 95% CrI 0.004 to 0.029 QALYs) with a cost-effectiveness of £13,524 per QALY, compared with thromboprophylaxis for none. If risk-based strategies are included, it is potentially more cost-effective to limit thromboprophylaxis to patients with a Leiden thrombosis risk in plaster (cast) [L-TRiP(cast)] score of ≥ 9 (£20,000 per QALY threshold) or ≥ 8 (£30,000 per QALY threshold). An optimal threshold on the L-TRiP(cast) receiver operating characteristic curve would have sensitivity of 84-89% and specificity of 46-55%. LIMITATIONS: Estimates of RAM prognostic accuracy are based on weak evidence. People at risk of bleeding were excluded from trials and, by implication, from modelling. CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis for lower-limb immobilisation due to injury is clinically effective and cost-effective compared with no thromboprophylaxis. Risk-based thromboprophylaxis is potentially optimal but the prognostic accuracy of existing RAMs is uncertain. FUTURE WORK: Research is required to determine whether or not an appropriate RAM can accurately select higher-risk patients for thromboprophylaxis. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017058688. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

People who have their leg immobilised in a plaster cast or brace following an injury are at risk of developing a blood clot. Sometimes the clot can break up and lodge in the lungs, which can make the person seriously ill. Drugs that thin the blood (anticoagulants) can reduce the risk of blood clots, but they carry a small risk of serious bleeding. This study analysed all published trials of anticoagulants for people with leg immobilisation and found that, without treatment, there was a 1­2% risk of a serious blood clot. This risk was roughly halved by using anticoagulant treatment. These estimates were used in a simulation model of patient treatment and it was found that the benefit of anticoagulants in reducing blood clots (in terms of length and quality of life) outweighed the risks of bleeding. Next, all published studies of risk assessment tools were analysed. Risk assessment tools can be used to predict who is most likely to get a blood clot. There were only a few studies and they had significant weaknesses. The risk assessment tools in the simulation model were evaluated and it was found that the most cost-effective approach was to use a risk assessment tool to select approximately half of the patients for treatment (those at higher risk), while not treating those at lower risk. Treating only the higher-risk patients would be a cost-effective use of NHS resources, compared with treating nobody. Treating everybody, compared with just treating higher-risk patients, would improve outcomes for some patients but would not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. This study suggests that anticoagulant drugs are an effective and potentially cost-effective way of preventing blood clots in people with leg immobilisation due to injury. Research is needed to determine whether or not risk assessment tools can accurately predict who needs anticoagulant drugs and who does not.

Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR).

OBJECTIVES: There are many rapid review methods; however, there is little pragmatic guidance on which methods to select. This study aimed to reach consensus among international rapid review experts outlining areas to consider when selecting approaches for rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-round modified online Delphi survey was conducted between May and July 2018. Participants were asked to rank the importance of a predefined list of 19 items. A consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori. RESULTS: Thirty experts from ten countries participated in round 1 and 24 in round 2. During round 1, consensus was reached on all items. One additional item on quality assessment was suggested by respondents and comments suggested wording changes to improve clarity and understanding of the tool. Respondents in the second round indicated a high level of importance and all 20 items achieved consensus. These items addressed interaction with commissioners, scoping and searching the evidence-base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. CONCLUSION: International consensus was reached to produce the SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) decision tool for planning rapid reviews and will lead to improved shared understanding between review teams and review commissioners.

Individual risk factors predictive of venous thromboembolism in patients with temporary lower limb immobilization due to injury: a systematic review.

Essentials Thromboprophylaxis after lower limb injury is often based on complex risk stratification. Our systematic review identified variables predicting venous thromboembolism (VTE) in this group. Age and injury type were commonly reported to increase the odds of VTE (odds ratio 1.5-3.48). We found limited evidence to support the use of other risk factors within prediction models. SUMMARY: Background Patients immobilized after lower limb injury are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). There is international variation in the use of thromboprophylaxis for such patients. Risk-based strategies have been adopted to aid decision making in many settings. The accuracy of these strategies is unclear. Objectives A systematic review was undertaken to identify all individual patient-identifiable risk factors linked to any VTE outcome following lower limb immobilization. Methods Several electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2017. Any studies that included a measurement of VTE as a patient outcome in adults requiring temporary immobilization (e.g. leg cast or brace in an ambulatory setting) for an isolated lower limb injury and reported risk factor variables were included. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to synthesize the evidence. Results Our database search returned 4771 citations, of which 15 studies reporting outcome data on 80 678 patients were eligible for analysis. Risk-factor associations were reported through regression analyses, non-parametric tests and descriptive statistics. All studies were assessed as at moderate or serious risk of bias using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. Advancing age and injury type were the only individual risk factors demonstrating a reproducible association with increased symptomatic and/or asymptomatic VTE rates. Several risk factors currently used in scoring tools did not appear to be robustly evaluated for subsequent association with VTE within these studies. Conclusions Clinicians should be aware of the limited evidence to support individual risk factors in guiding thromboprophylaxis use for this patient cohort.

Assessing prognosis and prediction of treatment response in early rheumatoid arthritis: systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating disease associated with reduced quality of life and substantial costs. It is unclear which tests and assessment tools allow the best assessment of prognosis in people with early RA and whether or not variables predict the response of patients to different drug treatments. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence on the use of selected tests and assessment tools in patients with early RA (1) in the evaluation of a prognosis (review 1) and (2) as predictive markers of treatment response (review 2). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science Conference Proceedings; searched to September 2016), registers, key websites, hand-searching of reference lists of included studies and key systematic reviews and contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION: Review 1 - primary studies on the development, external validation and impact of clinical prediction models for selected outcomes in adult early RA patients. Review 2 - primary studies on the interaction between selected baseline covariates and treatment (conventional and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) on salient outcomes in adult early RA patients. RESULTS: Review 1 - 22 model development studies and one combined model development/external validation study reporting 39 clinical prediction models were included. Five external validation studies evaluating eight clinical prediction models for radiographic joint damage were also included. c-statistics from internal validation ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for radiographic progression (different definitions, six studies) and 0.78 to 0.82 for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Predictive performance in external validations varied considerably. Three models [(1) Active controlled Study of Patients receiving Infliximab for the treatment of Rheumatoid arthritis of Early onset (ASPIRE) C-reactive protein (ASPIRE CRP), (2) ASPIRE erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASPIRE ESR) and (3) Behandelings Strategie (BeSt)] were externally validated using the same outcome definition in more than one population. Results of the random-effects meta-analysis suggested substantial uncertainty in the expected predictive performance of models in a new sample of patients. Review 2 - 12 studies were identified. Covariates examined included anti-citrullinated protein/peptide anti-body (ACPA) status, smoking status, erosions, rheumatoid factor status, C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, swollen joint count (SJC), body mass index and vascularity of synovium on power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS). Outcomes examined included erosions/radiographic progression, disease activity, physical function and Disease Activity Score-28 remission. There was statistical evidence to suggest that ACPA status, SJC and PDUS status at baseline may be treatment effect modifiers, but not necessarily that they are prognostic of response for all treatments. Most of the results were subject to considerable uncertainty and were not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis in review 1 was limited by the availability of only a small number of external validation studies. Studies rarely investigated the interaction between predictors and treatment. SUGGESTED RESEARCH PRIORITIES: Collaborative research (including the use of individual participant data) is needed to further develop and externally validate the clinical prediction models. The clinical prediction models should be validated with respect to individual treatments. Future assessments of treatment by covariate interactions should follow good statistical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Review 1 - uncertainty remains over the optimal prediction model(s) for use in clinical practice. Review 2 - in general, there was insufficient evidence that the effect of treatment depended on baseline characteristics. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042402. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.