Is primary trabeculectomy cost-effective for patients with advanced primary open angle glaucoma? Results from the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study economic model.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Advanced primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is a lifelong condition. The aim of this study is to compare medical treatment against trabeculectomy for patients presenting with advanced POAG using an economic evaluation decision model. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare the two treatments, medical treatment versus trabeculectomy for the management of advanced POAG, in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The uncertainty surrounding the model findings was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and deterministic analysis. Data for the model came from Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study supplemented with data from the literature. The main outcomes of the model presented in terms of Incremental costs and QALYs based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index-3 and a Glaucoma Utility Index. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis (lifetime horizon and EQ-5D-5L measure), participants receiving trabeculectomy had on average, an additional cost of £2687, an additional 0.28 QALYs and an incremental cost per QALY of £9679 compared with medical treatment. There was a 73% likelihood of trabeculectomy being considered cost-effective when society was willing to pay £20 000 for a QALY. Over shorter time horizons, the incremental cost per QALY gained from trabeculectomy compared with medical treatment was higher (47 663) for a 2-year time horizon. Our results are robust to changes in the key assumptions and input parameters values. CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with advanced POAG, trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective over a patient's lifetime compared with medical treatment.

Valuing selected WAItE health states using the Time Trade-Off methodology: findings from an online interviewer-assisted remote survey.

PURPOSE: The Weight-Specific Adolescent Instrument for Economic Evaluation (WAItE) is a physical weight-specific patient reported outcome measure for use in adolescence. The purpose of this study was to use the Time Trade-Off (TTO) methodology, administered using an online interviewer-assisted remote survey, to obtain utility values for several health states from the WAItE descriptive system from a sample of the UK adult general population. METHODS: The adult sample was gathered using a market research company and a sample of local residents. All participants completed the same interviewer-assisted remote survey, which included rating WAItE states of varying impairment using the TTO. RESULTS: 42 adults completed the survey. Utility values were gathered for four health states, ranging from low impairment to the most severe health from the WAItE descriptive system (the Pits state). Consistent orderings of the WAItE health states were observed; the health state with the lowest level of impairment was valued highest and the Pits state was valued lowest. Several respondents (n = 7, 17%) considered the Pits state to be worse than death; however, the mean value of this health state was 0.23. CONCLUSIONS: The utility value of the Pits state relative to death generated from this study will be used to anchor latent values for WAItE health states generated from a Discrete Choice Experiment onto the 0 = death, 1 = full health Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) scale as part of a valuation study for the WAItE in the UK population. This study also provides further evidence that interviewer-assisted digital studies are feasible for collecting TTO data.

Evaluating Primary Treatment for People with Advanced Glaucoma: Five-Year Results of the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or medical treatment produces better outcomes in terms of quality of life (QoL), clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Between June 3, 2014, and May 31, 2017, 453 adults with newly diagnosed advanced open-angle glaucoma in at least 1 eye (Hodapp classification) were recruited from 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the United Kingdom. Two hundred twenty-seven were allocated to trabeculectomy, and 226 were allocated medical management. METHODS: Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis to have either mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy or escalating medical management with intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing drops as the primary intervention and were followed up for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was vision-specific QoL measured with the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were general health status, glaucoma-related QoL, clinical effectiveness (IOP, visual field, and visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 5 years, the mean ± standard deviation VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medication arms were 83.3 ± 15.5 and 81.3 ± 17.5, respectively, and the mean difference was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.99 to 4.00; P = 0.51). The mean IOPs were 12.07 ± 5.18 mmHg and 14.76 ± 4.14 mmHg, respectively, and the mean difference was -2.56 (95% CI, -3.80 to -1.32; P < 0.001). Glaucoma severity measured with visual field mean deviation were -14.30 ± 7.14 dB and -16.74 ± 6.78 dB, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.87 (95% CI, 0.87-2.87 dB; P < 0.001). Safety events occurred in 115 (52.2%) of patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 124 (57.9%) of patients in the medication arm (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.54). Serious adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study demonstrated that primary trabeculectomy surgery is more effective in lowering IOP and preventing disease progression than primary medical treatment in patients with advanced disease and has a similar safety profile. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of a woman's uterus, bladder, or rectum into the vagina. It affects 50% of women over 50 years old who have given birth to at least one child, and recognised risk factors are older age, higher number of births, and higher body mass index. This review assesses the effects of oestrogen therapy, alone or in combination with other treatments, on POP in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of local and systemic oestrogen therapy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (up to 20 June 2022), which includes CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, multi-arm RCTs, and cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effects of oestrogen therapy (alone or in combination with other treatments) versus placebo, no treatment, or other interventions in postmenopausal women with any grade of POP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using prespecified outcome measures and a piloted extraction form. The same review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Had data allowed, we would have created summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies including a total of 1002 women. In general, studies were at high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel, and there were also some concerns about selective reporting. Owing to insufficient data for the outcomes of interest, we were unable to perform our planned subgroup analyses (systemic versus topical oestrogen, parous versus nulliparous women, women with versus without a uterus). No studies assessed the effects of oestrogen therapy alone versus no treatment, placebo, pelvic floor muscle training, devices such as vaginal pessaries, or surgery. However, we did identify three studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone and 11 studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with surgery versus surgery alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence from RCTs to draw any solid conclusions on the benefits or harms of oestrogen therapy for managing POP symptoms in postmenopausal women. Topical oestrogen in conjunction with pessaries was associated with fewer adverse vaginal events compared with pessaries alone, and topical oestrogen in conjunction with surgery was associated with reduced postoperative urinary tract infections compared with surgery alone; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the studies that contributed data varied substantially in their design. There is a need for larger studies on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oestrogen therapy, used alone or in conjunction with pelvic floor muscle training, vaginal pessaries, or surgery, for the management of POP. These studies should measure outcomes in the medium and long term.

Incorporating economic methods into Cochrane systematic reviews: case studies in brain tumour research.

BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews have established methods for identifying and critically appraising empirical evidence in health. In addition to evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of interventions, the resource implications of such interventions can have a huge impact on a decision maker's ability to adopt and implement them. In this paper, we present examples of the three approaches to include economic evidence in Cochrane reviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Handbook presents three different methods of integrating economic evidence into reviews: the Brief Economic Commentary (BEC), the Integrated Full Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations (IFSREE) and using an Economic Decision Model. Using the examples from three different systematic reviews in the field of brain cancer, we utilised each method to address three different research questions. A BEC was utilised in a review that evaluates the long-term side effects of radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy). An IFSREE was utilised in a review comparing different treatment strategies for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Finally, an economic model was included in a review assessing diagnostic test accuracy for tests of codeletion of chromosomal arms in people with glioma. RESULTS: The BEC mirrored the results of the main review and found a paucity of quality evidence with regard to the side effects of radiotherapy in those with glioma. The IFSREE identified a single economic evaluation regarding glioblastoma in the elderly, but this study had a number of methodological issues. The economic model identified a number of potentially cost-effective strategies for tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma. CONCLUSIONS: There are strengths and limitations of each approach for integrating economic evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews. The type of research question, resources available and study timeline should be considered when choosing which approach to use when integrating economic evidence.

Abemaciclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) of abemaciclib (Verzenios) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence, as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in combination with Newcastle University, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarised the Company Submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS and also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions. A systematic literature review identified the MonarchE trial, an ongoing, open-label, randomised, double blind trial involving 5637 people comparing abemaciclib in combination with ET versus ET alone. The trial included two cohorts that used different inclusion criteria to define high risk of recurrence. The ERG considered Cohort 1 as an adequate representation of this population and the AC concluded that Cohort 1 was generalisable to National Health Service clinical practice. Trial results showed improvements in invasive disease-free survival for the abemaciclib arm, which was considered an appropriate surrogate outcome. The ERG believed that the modelling structure presented in the de novo economic model by the company was appropriate but highlighted several areas of uncertainty that had the potential to have a significant impact on the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Areas of uncertainty included the extrapolation of long-term survival curves, the duration of treatment effect and treatment waning, and the proportion of patients who receive other CDK4/6 treatments for metastatic disease after receiving abemaciclib. ICER estimates were £9164 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the company's base-case and £17,810 for the ERG's base-case. NICE recommended abemaciclib with ET as an option for the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) is an advanced complication of diabetic retinopathy that can cause blindness. It consists of the presence of new vessels in the retina and vitreous haemorrhage. Although panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) is the treatment of choice for PDR, it has secondary effects that can affect vision. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF), which produces an inhibition of vascular proliferation, could improve the vision of people with PDR. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-VEGFs for PDR and summarise any relevant economic evaluations of their use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 1 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGFs to another active treatment, sham treatment, or no treatment for people with PDR. We also included studies that assessed the combination of anti-VEGFs with other treatments. We excluded studies that used anti-VEGFs in people undergoing vitrectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 new studies in this update, bringing the total to 23 RCTs with 1755 participants (2334 eyes). Forty-five per cent of participants were women and 55% were men, with a mean age of 56 years (range 48 to 77 years). The mean glycosylated haemoglobin (Hb1Ac) was 8.45% for the PRP group and 8.25% for people receiving anti-VEGFs alone or in combination. Twelve studies included people with PDR, and participants in 11 studies had high-risk PDR (HRPDR). Twelve studies were of bevacizumab, seven of ranibizumab, one of conbercept, two of pegaptanib, and one of aflibercept. The mean number of participants per RCT was 76 (ranging from 15 to 305). Most studies had an unclear or high RoB, mainly in the blinding of interventions and outcome assessors. A few studies had selective reporting and attrition bias. No study reported loss or gain of 3 or more lines of visual acuity (VA) at 12 months. Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably increase VA compared with PRP alone (mean difference (MD) -0.08 logMAR, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04; I2 = 28%; 10 RCTS, 1172 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may increase regression of new vessels (MD -4.14 mm2, 95% CI -6.84 to -1.43; I2 = 75%; 4 RCTS, 189 eyes; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase a complete regression of new vessels (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.24; I2 = 46%; 5 RCTS, 405 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP probably reduce vitreous haemorrhage (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTS, 1008 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.93; I2 = 43%; 8 RCTs, 1248 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Anti-VEGFs ± PRP may result in little to no difference in the quality of life compared with PRP alone (MD 0.62, 95% CI -3.99 to 5.23; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone had an impact on adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We did not find differences in visual acuity in subgroup analyses comparing the type of anti-VEGFs, the severity of the disease (PDR versus HRPDR), time to follow-up (< 12 months versus 12 or more months), and treatment with anti-VEGFs + PRP versus anti-VEGFs alone. The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence included a high RoB, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anti-VEGFs ± PRP compared with PRP alone probably increase visual acuity, but the degree of improvement is not clinically meaningful. Regarding secondary outcomes, anti-VEGFs ± PRP produce a regression of new vessels, reduce vitreous haemorrhage, and may reduce the need for vitrectomy compared with eyes that received PRP alone. We do not know if anti-VEGFs ± PRP have an impact on the incidence of adverse events and they may have little or no effect on patients' quality of life. Carefully designed and conducted clinical trials are required, assessing the optimal schedule of anti-VEGFs alone compared with PRP, and with a longer follow-up.

Interventions for myopia control in children: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Myopia is a common refractive error, where elongation of the eyeball causes distant objects to appear blurred. The increasing prevalence of myopia is a growing global public health problem, in terms of rates of uncorrected refractive error and significantly, an increased risk of visual impairment due to myopia-related ocular morbidity. Since myopia is usually detected in children before 10 years of age and can progress rapidly, interventions to slow its progression need to be delivered in childhood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy of optical, pharmacological and environmental interventions for slowing myopia progression in children using network meta-analysis (NMA). To generate a relative ranking of myopia control interventions according to their efficacy. To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations assessing myopia control interventions in children. To maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE; Embase; and three trials registers. The search date was 26 February 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of optical, pharmacological and environmental interventions for slowing myopia progression in children aged 18 years or younger. Critical outcomes were progression of myopia (defined as the difference in the change in spherical equivalent refraction (SER, dioptres (D)) and axial length (mm) in the intervention and control groups at one year or longer) and difference in the change in SER and axial length following cessation of treatment ('rebound').  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We assessed bias using RoB 2 for parallel RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes: change in SER and axial length at one and two years. Most comparisons were with inactive controls. MAIN RESULTS: We included 64 studies that randomised 11,617 children, aged 4 to 18 years. Studies were mostly conducted in China or other Asian countries (39 studies, 60.9%) and North America (13 studies, 20.3%). Fifty-seven studies (89%) compared myopia control interventions (multifocal spectacles, peripheral plus spectacles (PPSL), undercorrected single vision spectacles (SVLs), multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCL), orthokeratology, rigid gas-permeable contact lenses (RGP); or pharmacological interventions (including high- (HDA), moderate- (MDA) and low-dose (LDA) atropine, pirenzipine or 7-methylxanthine) against an inactive control. Study duration was 12 to 36 months. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Since the networks in the NMA were poorly connected, most estimates versus control were as, or more, imprecise than the corresponding direct estimates. Consequently, we mostly report estimates based on direct (pairwise) comparisons below. At one year, in 38 studies (6525 participants analysed), the median change in SER for controls was -0.65 D. The following interventions may reduce SER progression compared to controls: HDA (mean difference (MD) 0.90 D, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.18), MDA (MD 0.65 D, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03), LDA (MD 0.38 D, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66), pirenzipine (MD 0.32 D, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49), MFSCL (MD 0.26 D, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35), PPSLs (MD 0.51 D, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82), and multifocal spectacles (MD 0.14 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21). By contrast, there was little or no evidence that RGP (MD 0.02 D, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10), 7-methylxanthine (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.24) or undercorrected SVLs (MD -0.15 D, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00) reduce progression.  At two years, in 26 studies (4949 participants), the median change in SER for controls was -1.02 D. The following interventions may reduce SER progression compared to controls: HDA (MD 1.26 D, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.36), MDA (MD 0.45 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83), LDA (MD 0.24 D, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.31), pirenzipine (MD 0.41 D, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69), MFSCL (MD 0.30 D, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41), and multifocal spectacles  (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30). PPSLs (MD 0.34 D, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.76) may also reduce progression, but the results were inconsistent. For RGP, one study found a benefit and another found no difference with control. We found no difference in SER change for undercorrected SVLs (MD 0.02 D, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09). At one year, in 36 studies (6263 participants), the median change in axial length for controls was 0.31 mm. The following interventions may reduce axial elongation compared to controls: HDA (MD -0.33 mm, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.30), MDA (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.17), LDA (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), orthokeratology (MD -0.19 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.15), MFSCL (MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.09), pirenzipine (MD -0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02), PPSLs (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.03), and multifocal spectacles (MD -0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04). We found little or no evidence that RGP (MD 0.02 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10), 7-methylxanthine (MD 0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03) or undercorrected SVLs (MD 0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.11) reduce axial length. At two years, in 21 studies (4169 participants), the median change in axial length for controls was 0.56 mm. The following interventions may reduce axial elongation compared to controls: HDA (MD -0.47mm, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.34), MDA (MD -0.33 mm, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.20), orthokeratology (MD -0.28 mm, (95% CI -0.38 to -0.19), LDA (MD -0.16 mm, 95% CI -0.20 to  -0.12), MFSCL (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.12), and multifocal spectacles (MD -0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.03). PPSL may reduce progression (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.05) but results were inconsistent. We found little or no evidence that undercorrected SVLs (MD -0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.03) or RGP (MD 0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12) reduce axial length. There was inconclusive evidence on whether treatment cessation increases myopia progression. Adverse events and treatment adherence were not consistently reported, and only one study reported quality of life. No studies reported environmental interventions reporting progression in children with myopia, and no economic evaluations assessed interventions for myopia control in children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies mostly compared pharmacological and optical treatments to slow the progression of myopia with an inactive comparator. Effects at one year provided evidence that these interventions may slow refractive change and reduce axial elongation, although results were often heterogeneous. A smaller body of evidence is available at two or three years, and uncertainty remains about the sustained effect of these interventions. Longer-term and better-quality studies comparing myopia control interventions used alone or in combination are needed, and improved methods for monitoring and reporting adverse effects.

ANTECEDENTES: La miopía es un defecto de refracción frecuente, en el que el alargamiento del globo ocular hace que los objetos lejanos aparezcan borrosos. La creciente prevalencia de la miopía es un problema de salud pública mundial cada vez mayor, en cuanto a tasas de defectos de refracción no corregidos y un significativamente mayor riesgo de discapacidad visual debido a la morbilidad ocular relacionada con la miopía. Dado que la miopía se suele detectar en niños antes de los 10 años y puede evolucionar rápidamente, las intervenciones para frenar su avance se deben realizar en la infancia. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia comparativa de las intervenciones ópticas, farmacológicas y ambientales para frenar la progresión de la miopía en niños mediante un metanálisis en red (MAR). Generar una clasificación relativa de las intervenciones de control de la miopía en función de su eficacia. Elaborar un breve comentario económico que resuma las evaluaciones económicas de las intervenciones de control de la miopía en niños. Mantener la vigencia de la evidencia mediante un enfoque de revisión sistemática continua. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL (que contiene el Registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Salud ocular y de la visión [Cochrane Eyes and Vision]), MEDLINE; Embase; y en tres registros de ensayos. La fecha de búsqueda fue el 26 de febrero de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) de intervenciones ópticas, farmacológicas y ambientales para retrasar la progresión de la miopía en niños de hasta 18 años. Los desenlaces fundamentales fueron la progresión de la miopía (definida como la diferencia en el cambio del equivalente esférico de la refracción [EER, dioptrías (D)] y la longitud axial [mm] en los grupos de intervención y control al año o más) y la diferencia en el cambio del EER y la longitud axial tras el cese del tratamiento ("rebote"). OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los métodos Cochrane estándar. El sesgo se evaluó mediante la herramienta RoB 2 en el caso de los ECA paralelos. La certeza de la evidencia se calificó mediante el método GRADE para los desenlaces: cambio del EER y la longitud axial al año y a los dos años. La mayoría de las comparaciones se realizaron con controles inactivos. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 64 estudios que asignaron al azar a 11 617 niños de cuatro a 18 años de edad. Los estudios se realizaron principalmente en China u otros países asiáticos (39 estudios; 60,9%) y Norteamérica (13 estudios; 20,3%). Cincuenta y siete estudios (89%) compararon intervenciones de control de la miopía (gafas multifocales, gafas periféricas plus [PPSL por sus siglas en inglés], gafas monofocales [SVL por sus siglas en inglés] subcorregidas, lentes de contacto multifocales blandas [MFSCL por sus siglas en inglés], ortoqueratología, lentes de contacto rígidas permeables al gas [RGP por sus siglas en inglés]); o intervenciones farmacológicas (incluidas atropina a dosis alta, media y baja, pirenzipina o 7­metilxantina) contra un control inactivo. La duración de los estudios fue de 12 a 36 meses. La certeza global de la evidencia varió entre muy baja y moderada. Debido a que las redes del MAR estaban mal conectadas, la mayoría de las estimaciones versus control fueron tan imprecisas o más que las correspondientes estimaciones directas. En consecuencia, a continuación se presentan principalmente estimaciones basadas en comparaciones directas (por pares). Al año, en 38 estudios (6525 participantes analizados), la mediana del cambio del EER para los controles fue de ­0,65 D. Las siguientes intervenciones podrían reducir la progresión del EER en comparación con los controles: atropina a dosis alta (diferencia de medias [DM] 0,90 D; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,62 a 1,18), atropina a dosis media (DM 0,65 D; IC del 95%: 0,27 a 1,03), atropina a dosis baja (DM 0,38 D; IC del 95%: 0,10 a 0,66), pirenzipina (DM 0,32 D; IC del 95%: 0,15 a 0,49), MFSCL (DM 0,26 D; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 0,35), PPSL (DM 0,51 D; IC del 95%: 0,19 a 0,82) y gafas multifocales (DM 0,14 D; IC del 95%: 0,08 a 0,21). Por el contrario, hubo poca o ninguna evidencia de que las RGP (DM 0,02 D; IC del 95%: ­0,05 a 0,10), la 7­metilxantina (DM 0,07 D; IC del 95%: ­0,09 a 0,24) o las SVL subcorregidas (DM ­0,15 D; IC del 95%: ­0,29 a 0,00) redujeran la progresión. A los dos años, en 26 estudios (4949 participantes), el cambio medio del EER para los controles fue de ­1,02 D. Las siguientes intervenciones podrían reducir la progresión del EER en comparación con los controles: atropina a dosis alta (DM 1,26 D; IC del 95%: 1,17 a 1,36), atropina a dosis media (DM 0,45 D; IC del 95%: 0,08 a 0,83), atropina a dosis baja (DM 0,24 D; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 0,31), pirenzipina (DM 0,41 D; IC del 95%: 0,13 a 0,69), MFSCL (DM 0,30 D; IC del 95%: 0,19 a 0,41) y gafas multifocales (DM 0,19 D; IC del 95%: 0,08 a 0,30). Las PPSL (DM 0,34 D; IC del 95%: ­0,08 a 0,76) también podrían reducir la progresión, pero los resultados no fueron consistentes. Para las RGP, un estudio encontró un efecto beneficioso y otro no encontró diferencias con el control. No se observaron diferencias en el cambio del EER para las SVL subcorregidas (DM 0,02 D; IC del 95%: ­0,05 a 0,09). Al año, en 36 estudios (6.263 participantes), el cambio medio en la longitud axial de los controles fue de 0,31 mm. Las siguientes intervenciones podrían reducir la elongación axial en comparación con los controles: atropina a dosis alta (DM ­0,33 mm; IC 95%: ­0,35 a 0,30), atropina a dosis media (DM ­0,28 mm; IC 95%: ­0,38 a ­0,17), atropina a dosis baja (DM ­0,13 mm; IC 95%: ­0,21 a ­0,05), ortoqueratología (DM ­0,19 mm; IC 95%: ­0,23 a ­0,15), MFSCL (DM ­0,11 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a ­0,09), pirenzipina (DM ­0,10 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,18 a ­0,02), PPSL (DM ­0,13 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,24 a ­0,03) y gafas multifocales (DM ­0,06 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,09 a ­0,04). Se encontró poca o ninguna evidencia de que las RGP (DM 0,02 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,05 a 0,10), la 7­metilxantina (DM 0,03 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,10 a 0,03) o las SVL subcorregidas (DM 0,05 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,01 a 0,11) reduzcan la longitud axial. A los dos años, en 21 estudios (4169 participantes), la mediana del cambio en la longitud axial de los controles fue de 0,56 mm. Las siguientes intervenciones podrían reducir la elongación axial en comparación con los controles: atropina a dosis alta (DM ­0,47 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,61 a ­0,34), atropina a dosis media (DM ­0,33 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,46 a ­0,20), ortoqueratología (DM ­0,28 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,38 a ­0,19), atropina a dosis baja (DM ­0,16 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,20 a ­0,12), MFSCL (DM ­0,15 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,19 a ­0,12) y gafas multifocales (DM ­0,07 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,12 a ­0,03). Las PPSL podrían reducir la progresión (DM ­0,20 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,45 a 0,05), pero los resultados no fueron consistentes. Se encontró poca o ninguna evidencia de que las SVL subcorregidas (DM ­0,01 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,06 a 0,03) o las RGP (DM 0,03 mm; IC del 95%: ­0,05 a 0,12) reduzcan la longitud axial. No hubo evidencia concluyente sobre si el abandono del tratamiento aumenta la progresión de la miopía. Los eventos adversos y la adherencia al tratamiento no se comunicaron de forma consistente, y solo un estudio informó sobre la calidad de vida. Ningún estudio proporcionó información sobre intervenciones ambientales que informaran sobre la progresión en niños con miopía y ninguna evaluación económica analizó intervenciones para el control de la miopía en niños. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La mayoría de los estudios compararon tratamientos farmacológicos y ópticos para enlentecer la progresión de la miopía con un comparador inactivo. Los efectos al año demostraron que estas intervenciones podrían ralentizar el cambio refractivo y reducir el alargamiento axial, aunque a menudo los resultados fueron heterogéneos. El conjunto de evidencia disponible a los dos o tres años fue más escaso, y persiste la incertidumbre sobre el efecto sostenido de estas intervenciones. Se necesitan estudios a más largo plazo y de mejor calidad que comparen las intervenciones para el control de la miopía utilizadas solas o en combinación, así como métodos mejorados de seguimiento y notificación de los efectos adversos.

Coping with uncertainty in everyday situations (CUES©) to address intolerance of uncertainty in autistic children: an intervention feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety related to uncertainty is common in autism. Coping with Uncertainty in Everyday Situations (CUES©) is a parent-mediated group intervention aiming to increase autistic children's tolerance to uncertain situations. A pilot study was conducted to test its feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Parents of 50 autistic children were randomised to receive CUES© or enhanced services as usual. RESULTS: All children met the clinical threshold for at least one anxiety disorder. Of the 26 participants randomised to CUES©, 72% attended 4-8 sessions. Parents and therapists reported they found CUES© useful and acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Families were willing to be recruited and randomised, the format/content was feasible to deliver, and the outcome measures were acceptable. CUES© should be evaluated in a clinical and cost effectiveness randomised controlled trial.

Acupuncture for treating overactive bladder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder is a common, long-term symptom complex, which includes frequency of micturition, urgency with or without associated incontinence and nocturia. Around 11% of the population have symptoms, with this figure increasing with age. Symptoms can be linked to social anxiety and adaptive behavioural change. The cost of treating overactive bladder is considerable, with current treatments varying in effectiveness and being associated with side effects. Acupuncture has been suggested as an alternative treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of acupuncture for treating overactive bladder in adults, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (including In-Process, Epub Ahead of Print, Daily), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP (searched 14 May 2022). We also searched the Allied and Complementary Medicine database (AMED) and bibliographic databases where knowledge of the Chinese language was necessary: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI); Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) and WANFANG (China Online Journals), as well as the reference lists of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cross-over RCTs assessing the effects of acupuncture for treating overactive bladder in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors formed pairs to assess study eligibility and extract data. Both pairs used Covidence software to perform screening and data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool and assessed heterogeneity using the Chi2 testand I2 statistic generated within the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model within the meta-analyses unless there was a moderate or high level of heterogeneity, where we employed a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies involving 1395 participants in this review (14 RCTs and one quasi-RCT). All included studies raised some concerns regarding risk of bias. Blinding of participants to treatment group was only achieved in 20% of studies, we considered blinding of outcome assessors and allocation concealment to be low risk in only 25% of the studies, and random sequence generation to be either unclear or high risk in more than 50% of the studies. Acupuncture versus no treatment One study compared acupuncture to no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of acupuncture compared to no treatment in curing or improving overactive bladder symptoms and on the number of minor adverse events (both very low-certainty evidence). The study report explicitly stated that no major adverse events occurred. The study did not report on the presence or absence of urinary urgency, episodes of urinary incontinence, daytime urinary frequency or episodes of nocturia. Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture Five studies compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of acupuncture on curing or improving overactive bladder symptoms compared to sham acupuncture (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to 0.31; 3 studies; 151 participants; I2 = 65%; very low-certainty evidence). All five studies explicitly stated that there were no major adverse events observed during the study. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that acupuncture probably makes no difference to the incidence of minor adverse events compared to sham acupuncture (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.36; 4 studies; 222 participants; I² = 0%). Only one small study reported data for the presence or absence of urgency and for episodes of nocturia. The evidence is of very low certainty for both of these outcomes and in both cases the lower confidence interval is implausible. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably little or no difference in episodes of urinary incontinence between acupuncture and sham acupuncture (mean difference (MD) 0.55, 95% CI -1.51 to 2.60; 2 studies; 121 participants; I2 = 57%). Two studies recorded data regarding daytime urinary frequency but we could not combine them in a meta-analysis due to differences in methodologies (very low-certainty evidence). Acupuncture versus medication Eleven studies compared acupuncture with medication. Low-certainty evidence suggests that acupuncture may slightly increase how many people's overactive bladder symptoms are cured or improved compared to medication (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43; 5 studies; 258 participants; I2 = 19%). Low-certainty evidence suggests that acupuncture may reduce the incidence of minor adverse events when compared to medication (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45; 8 studies; 1004 participants; I² = 51%). The evidence is uncertain regarding the effect of acupuncture on the presence or absence of urinary urgency (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.24; 2 studies; 80 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and episodes of urinary incontinence (MD -0.33, 95% CI -2.75 to 2.09; 1 study; 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to medication. Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little to no effect of acupuncture compared to medication in terms of daytime urinary frequency (MD 0.73, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.85; 4 studies; 360 participants; I2 = 28%). Acupuncture may slightly reduce the number of nocturia episodes compared to medication (MD -0.50, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.36; 2 studies; 80 participants; I2 = 0%, low-certainty evidence). There were no incidences of major adverse events in any of the included studies. However, major adverse events are rare in acupuncture trials and the numbers included in this review may be insufficient to detect these events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect acupuncture has on cure or improvement of overactive bladder symptoms compared to no treatment. It is uncertain if there is any difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture in cure or improvement of overactive bladder symptoms. This review provides low-certainty evidence that acupuncture may result in a slight increase in cure or improvement of overactive bladder symptoms when compared with medication and may reduce the incidence of minor adverse events. These conclusions must remain tentative until the completion of larger, higher-quality studies that use relevant, comparable outcomes. Timing and frequency of treatment, point selection, application and long-term follow-up are other areas relevant for research.

Cost-effectiveness of primary surgical versus primary medical management in the treatment of patients presenting with advanced glaucoma.

SYNOPSIS: Advanced glaucoma is associated with sight loss. This within-trial economic evaluation compares medical and surgical management strategies. At 2 years, medication appears more cost-effective though longitudinal outcomes are an important subject in future research. BACKGROUND/AIMS: Open angle glaucoma (OAG) is a progressive optic neuropathy. Approximately 25% of newly diagnosed patients with OAG present with advanced disease in at least one eye. The vision loss associated with OAG can lead to significant impacts on vision, quality of life and health care resources. The Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study is a randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of primary surgical and medical management for newly diagnosed advanced patients with OAG. An economic evaluation was carried out to understand the costs and benefits of each strategy. METHODS: A cost utility analysis was carried out from a National Health Service perspective over a 2-year time horizon inclusive of patient costs. The primary outcome was patient health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3) and Glaucoma Utility Index (GUI). Results were expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Trabeculectomy was associated with higher costs and greater effect, the EQ-5D-5L results have an incremental cost per QALY of £45,456. The likelihood of surgery being cost-effective at a £20, 000, £30,000 and £50,000 QALY threshold is 0%, 12% and 56%, respectively. The results for the HUI3, GUI and inclusion of patient costs do not change the conclusions of the study. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate management strategies for those presenting with advanced glaucoma. At a 2-year time horizon, medication is the more cost-effective approach for managing glaucoma. Future research can focus on the costs and benefits of the treatments over a longer time horizon.

Diagnostic test accuracy and cost-effectiveness of tests for codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q in people with glioma.

BACKGROUND: Complete deletion of both the short arm of chromosome 1 (1p) and the long arm of chromosome 19 (19q), known as 1p/19q codeletion, is a mutation that can occur in gliomas. It occurs in a type of glioma known as oligodendroglioma and its higher grade counterpart known as anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Detection of 1p/19q codeletion in gliomas is important because, together with another mutation in an enzyme known as isocitrate dehydrogenase, it is needed to make the diagnosis of an oligodendroglioma. Presence of 1p/19q codeletion also informs patient prognosis and prediction of the best drug treatment. The main two tests in use are fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) assays (also known as PCR-based short tandem repeat or microsatellite analysis). Many other tests are available. None of the tests is perfect, although PCR-based LOH is expected to have very high sensitivity. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity and cost-effectiveness of different deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-based techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status in glioma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and BIOSIS up to July 2019. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. We sought economic evaluation studies from the results of this search and using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional studies in adults with glioma or any subtype of glioma, presenting raw data or cross-tabulations of two or more DNA-based tests for 1p/19q codeletion. We also sought economic evaluations of these tests. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Two review authors independently screened titles/abstracts/full texts, performed data extraction, and undertook applicability and risk of bias assessments using QUADAS-2. Meta-analyses used the hierarchical summary ROC model to estimate and compare test accuracy. We used FISH and PCR-based LOH as alternate reference standards to examine how tests compared with those in common use, and conducted a latent class analysis comparing FISH and PCR-based LOH. We constructed an economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 studies examining: PCR-based LOH, FISH, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, next-generation sequencing (NGS), comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH), array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH), multiplex-ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), real-time PCR, chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH), mass spectrometry (MS), restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, G-banding, methylation array and NanoString. Risk of bias was low for only one study; most gave us concerns about how patients were selected or about missing data. We had applicability concerns about many of the studies because only patients with specific subtypes of glioma were included. 1520 participants contributed to analyses using FISH as the reference, 1304 participants to analyses involving PCR-based LOH as the reference and 262 participants to analyses of comparisons between methods from studies not including FISH or PCR-based LOH. Most evidence was available for comparison of FISH with PCR-based LOH (15 studies, 915 participants): PCR-based LOH detected 94% of FISH-determined codeletions (95% credible interval (CrI) 83% to 98%) and FISH detected 91% of codeletions determined by PCR-based LOH (CrI 78% to 97%). Of tumours determined not to have a deletion by FISH, 94% (CrI 87% to 98%) had a deletion detected by PCR-based LOH, and of those determined not to have a deletion by PCR-based LOH, 96% (CrI 90% to 99%) had a deletion detected by FISH. The latent class analysis suggested that PCR-based LOH may be slightly more accurate than FISH. Most other techniques appeared to have high sensitivity (i.e. produced few false-negative results) for detection of 1p/19q codeletion when either FISH or PCR-based LOH was considered as the reference standard, although there was limited evidence. There was some indication of differences in specificity (false-positive rate) with some techniques. Both NGS and SNP array had high specificity when considered against FISH as the reference standard (NGS: 6 studies, 243 participants; SNP: 6 studies, 111 participants), although we rated certainty in the evidence as low or very low. NGS and SNP array also had high specificity when PCR-based LOH was considered the reference standard, although with much more uncertainty as these results were based on fewer studies (just one study with 49 participants for NGS and two studies with 33 participants for SNP array). G-banding had low sensitivity and specificity when PCR-based LOH was the reference standard. Although MS had very high sensitivity and specificity when both FISH and PCR-based LOH were considered the reference standard, these results were based on only one study with a small number of participants. Real-time PCR also showed high specificity with FISH as a reference standard, although there were only two studies including 40 participants. We found no relevant economic evaluations. Our economic model using FISH as the reference standard suggested that the resource-optimising test depends on which measure of diagnostic accuracy is most important. With FISH as the reference standard, MLPA is likely to be cost-effective if society was willing to pay GBP 1000 or less for a true positive detected. However, as the value placed on a true positive increased, CISH was most cost-effective. Findings differed when the outcome measure changed to either true negative detected or correct diagnosis. When PCR-based LOH was used as the reference standard, MLPA was likely to be cost-effective for all measures of diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold values for willingness to pay. However, as the threshold values increased, none of the tests were clearly more likely to be considered cost-effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In our review, most techniques (except G-banding) appeared to have good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma against both FISH and PCR-based LOH as a reference standard. However, we judged the certainty of the evidence low or very low for all the tests. There are possible differences in specificity, with both NGS and SNP array having high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. The economic analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies.

Teleophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease (HERMES): a Cluster Randomised Superiority Trial with a linked Diagnostic Accuracy Study-HERMES study report 1-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent years have witnessed an upsurge of demand in eye care services in the UK. With a large proportion of patients referred to Hospital Eye Services (HES) for diagnostics and disease management, the referral process results in unnecessary referrals from erroneous diagnoses and delays in access to appropriate treatment. A potential solution is a teleophthalmology digital referral pathway linking community optometry and HES. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HERMES study (Teleophthalmology-enabled and artificial intelligence-ready referral pathway for community optometry referrals of retinal disease: a cluster randomised superiority trial with a linked diagnostic accuracy study) is a cluster randomised clinical trial for evaluating the effectiveness of a teleophthalmology referral pathway between community optometry and HES for retinal diseases. Nested within HERMES is a diagnostic accuracy study, which assesses the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) decision support system (DSS) for automated diagnosis and referral recommendation. A postimplementation, observational substudy, a within-trial economic evaluation and discrete choice experiment will assess the feasibility of implementation of both digital technologies within a real-life setting. Patients with a suspicion of retinal disease, undergoing eye examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans, will be recruited across 24 optometry practices in the UK. Optometry practices will be randomised to standard care or teleophthalmology. The primary outcome is the proportion of false-positive referrals (unnecessary HES visits) in the current referral pathway compared with the teleophthalmology referral pathway. OCT scans will be interpreted by the AI DSS, which provides a diagnosis and referral decision and the primary outcome for the AI diagnostic study is diagnostic accuracy of the referral decision made by the Moorfields-DeepMind AI system. Secondary outcomes relate to inappropriate referral rate, cost-effectiveness analyses and human-computer interaction (HCI) analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (REC 20/LO/1299). Findings will be reported through academic journals in ophthalmology, health services research and HCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18106677 (protocol V.1.1).

Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma: A comprehensive meta-analysis based on a Cochrane systematic review.

Codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q, in conjunction with a mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 gene, is the molecular diagnostic criterion for oligodendroglioma, IDH mutant and 1p/19q codeleted. 1p/19q codeletion is a diagnostic marker and allows prognostication and prediction of the best drug response within IDH-mutant tumours. We performed a Cochrane review and simple economic analysis to establish the most sensitive, specific and cost-effective techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) test methods were considered as reference standard. Most techniques (FISH, chromogenic in situ hybridisation [CISH], PCR, real-time PCR, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification [MLPA], single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] array, comparative genomic hybridisation [CGH], array CGH, next-generation sequencing [NGS], mass spectrometry and NanoString) showed good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma, irrespective of whether FISH or PCR-based LOH was used as the reference standard. Both NGS and SNP array had a high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. Our findings suggest that G banding is not a suitable test for 1p/19q analysis. Within these limits, considering cost per diagnosis and using FISH as a reference, MLPA was marginally more cost-effective than other tests, although these economic analyses were limited by the range of available parameters, time horizon and data from multiple healthcare organisations.

Caregiver perspectives on the impact of uncertainty on the everyday lives of autistic children and their families.

LAY ABSTRACT: Anxiety is common in autistic children. Research shows that this may be related to intolerance of uncertainty, which is a tendency to react negatively to uncertain situations. Understanding when, why and how autistic children respond to uncertainty is important in the development of anxiety programmes. We asked 53 (including 3 dyads) parents of autistic children about the types of uncertain situations that cause difficulties for their child and how uncertainty impacts on daily life for them and their families. We found that uncertain situations made autistic children and their families feel sad, worried, frustrated and angry through the themes: child's reactions to uncertainty, trying to reduce uncertainty, the impact of difficulties with uncertainty, the impact of uncertainty on parenting and the impact on parents. There are lots of situations that are anxiety provoking for autistic children because of uncertainty, such as school. Programmes to reduce anxiety and increase autistic children's ability to cope with everyday uncertain situations could improve quality of life for autistic children and their families.

Primary trabeculectomy versus primary glaucoma eye drops for newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma: TAGS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma are at a high risk of lifetime blindness. Uncertainty exists about whether primary medical management (glaucoma eye drops) or primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) provide the best and safest patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare primary medical management with primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma presenting with advanced disease in terms of health-related quality of life, clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, parallel, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Secondary care eye services. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients presenting with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma in at least one eye, as defined by the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson classification of severe glaucoma. INTERVENTION: Primary medical treatment - escalating medical management with glaucoma eye drops. Primary trabeculectomy treatment - trabeculectomy augmented with mitomycin C. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were mean intraocular pressure; EQ-5D-5L; Health Utilities Index 3; Glaucoma Utility Index; cost and cost-effectiveness; generic, vision-specific and disease-specific health-related quality of life; clinical effectiveness; and safety. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants were recruited. The mean age of the participants was 67 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the trabeculectomy arm and 68 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the medical management arm. Over 65% of participants were male and more than 80% were white. At 24 months, the mean difference in Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score was 1.06 (95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; p = 0.383). There was no evidence of a difference between arms in the EQ-5D-5L score, the Health Utilities Index or the Glaucoma Utility Index. At 24 months, the mean intraocular pressure was 12.40 mmHg in the trabeculectomy arm and 15.07 mmHg in the medical management arm (mean difference -2.75 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -3.84 to -1.66 mmHg; p < 0.001). Fewer types of glaucoma eye drops were required in the trabeculectomy arm. LogMAR visual acuity was slightly better in the medical management arm (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.11; p = 0.006) than in the trabeculectomy arm. There was no evidence of difference in safety between the two arms. A discrete choice experiment updated the utility values for the Glaucoma Utility Index. The within-trial economic analysis found a small increase in the mean EQ-5D-5L score (0.04) and that trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective than medical management. The incremental cost of trabeculectomy per quality-adjusted life-year was £45,456. Therefore, at 2 years, surgery is unlikely to be considered cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. When extrapolated over a patient's lifetime in a model-based analysis, trabeculectomy, compared with medical treatment, was associated with higher costs (average £2687), a larger number of quality-adjusted life-years (average 0.28) and higher incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (average £9679). The likelihood of trabeculectomy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that there was no difference between treatment arms in health-related quality of life, as measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 24 months. Intraocular pressure was better controlled in the trabeculectomy arm, and this may reduce visual field progression. Modelling over the patient's lifetime suggests that trabeculectomy may be cost-effective over the range of values of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year. FUTURE WORK: Further follow-up of participants will allow us to estimate the long-term differences of disease progression, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56878850. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Glaucoma is an eye condition in which the intraocular pressure is too high, causing damage to the optic nerve and loss of vision. Patients with severe vision loss at diagnosis are the most at risk of blindness in their lifetime. Lowering pressure in the eye is the only way to prevent further vision loss. Two treatments to lower pressure are commonly used: using eye drops or having an operation known as a trabeculectomy. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgery as the first treatment. However, we do not know which treatment is best for preventing vision loss or which is safest, has the best patient experience or provides the best value for money for the NHS. Therefore, surgery is not usually carried out in the first instance and patients start with eye drops instead. This study compared whether starting treatment with eye drops affected the quality of life of patients with advanced glaucoma more or less than starting treatment with trabeculectomy. We also investigated if initial treatment with surgery and initial treatment with eye drops were equally good at controlling pressure and were equally safe, and how much each treatment cost the NHS. Every patient had an equal chance of starting treatment with surgery or eye drops and they participated in the study for 2 years. We found that quality of life was similar regardless of treatment. Those starting with surgery had lower pressure and needed far fewer types of eye drops than those starting with eye drops. Thirty-nine patients in the eye drop arm required surgery to control their glaucoma. Initial treatment with eye drops was cheaper over 2 years' follow-up. Our study suggests that, over a 2-year period, having surgery in the first instance lowers intraocular pressure more than eye drops and is equally as safe as eye drops. Although eye drops are a cheaper treatment option for the NHS, if the effects of surgery on intraocular pressure are lasting, then the increased cost may be justified.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.

ANTECEDENTES: El glioblastoma (GBM) es un tumor cerebral altamente maligno que casi inevitablemente progresa o recidiva después de un tratamiento de primera línea. No hay consenso sobre el mejor o los mejores tratamientos que se pueden ofrecer a las personas que presentan progresión o recidiva de la enfermedad. A los efectos de la presente revisión, la progresión y la recidiva se consideran como una sola entidad. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad de los tratamientos adicionales para la primera y subsiguiente progresión o recidiva del glioblastoma (GBM) entre las personas que han recibido atención estándar (protocolo Stupp) para el tratamiento primario de la enfermedad, así como preparar un breve comentario económico sobre la evidencia disponible. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas de MEDLINE y Embase desde 2005 hasta diciembre de 2019 y en el Registro Cochrane central de ensayos controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) (CENTRAL, en la Cochrane Library; Número 12, 2019). Las búsquedas económicas incluyeron la National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) hasta 2015 (cierre de la base de datos) y MEDLINE y Embase desde 2015 hasta diciembre de 2019. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y estudios comparativos no aleatorizados (no ECA) que evaluaron la efectividad de los tratamientos para el GBM progresivo/recidivante. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron personas con GBM progresivo o recidivante que habían recibido radioterapia de primera línea con temozolomida (TMZ) concomitante y adyuvante. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión de forma independiente seleccionaron los estudios y extrajeron los datos en un formulario de extracción de datos prediseñado. Se realizaron metanálisis en red (MAR) y los tratamientos se clasificaron según la efectividad de cada desenlace, mediante el modelo de efectos aleatorios y el software Stata (versión 15). La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó mediante los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 42 estudios, que comprendieron 34 ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y ocho estudios no aleatorizados (no ECA), con 5236 participantes. Se consideró que la mayoría de los ECA tuvieron bajo riesgo de sesgo y que los no ECA tuvieron alto riesgo de sesgo. Las intervenciones incluyeron quimioterapia, reoperación, reirradiación y tratamientos nuevos, ya sea utilizadas solos o en combinación. Para la primera recidiva se incluyeron 11 intervenciones en el metanálisis en red (MAR) para la supervivencia general (SG), y ocho para la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP). La lomustina (LOM; también conocida como CCNU) fue el comparador más frecuente y se utilizó como tratamiento de referencia. Ningún estudio en el MAR evaluó la cirugía, la reirradiación, la PCV (procarbazina, lomustina, vincristina), la reexposición a TMZ o el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. No fue posible realizar un MAR para una segunda o posterior recidiva debido a que los datos no fueron suficientes. Los datos de calidad de vida fueron escasos. Primera recidiva (hallazgos del MAR) La mediana de la SG en los estudios incluidos en el MAR varió entre 5,5 y 12,6 meses y la mediana de la supervivencia sin progresión (SSP) varió entre 1,5 y 4,2 meses. No se encontró evidencia de certeza alta de que los tratamientos probados fueran mejores que la lomustina. Estos tratamientos incluyeron los siguientes. Bevacizumab más lomustina: La evidencia indicó probablemente poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG entre el bevacizumab (BEV) combinado con lomustina (LOM) y la monoterapia con LOM (cociente de riesgos instantáneo [CRI] 0,91; 0,75 a 1,10; evidencia de certeza moderada), aunque BEV + LOM puede mejorar la SSP (CRI 0,57; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,44 a 0,74; evidencia de certeza baja). Monoterapia con bevacizumab: La evidencia de certeza baja indicó que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia en la SG (CRI 1,22; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 1,76) y la SSP (CRI 0,90; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 1,38; evidencia de certeza baja) entre las monoterapias con BEV y LOM; se necesita más evidencia sobre el BEV. Regorafenib (REG): El REG puede mejorar la SG en comparación con la LOM (CRI 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,76; evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia sobre la SSP fue de certeza muy baja y se necesita más evidencia sobre el REG. Temozolomida (TMZ) más Depatux­M (ABT414): En cuanto a la SG, evidencia de certeza baja indicó que TMZ más ABT414 puede ser más efectiva que LOM (CRI 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 0,92) y puede ser más efectiva que BEV (CRI 0,54; IC del 95%: 0,33 a 0,89; evidencia de certeza baja). Lo anterior se puede deber solamente al componente de TMZ, y se necesita más evidencia. Fotemustina (FOM): FOM y LOM pueden tener efectos similares sobre la SG (CRI 0,89; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,57, evidencia de certeza baja). Bevacizumab e irinotecan (IRI): La evidencia sobre BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM para la SG y la SSP no está clara y probablemente hay poca o ninguna diferencia entre BEV + IRI versus la monoterapia con BEV (SG: CRI 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,70 a 1,30; evidencia de certeza moderada). Cuando los tratamientos se clasificaron según la SG, FOM se clasificó primero, BEV + LOM segundo, LOM tercero, BEV + IRI cuarto, y BEV quinto. La clasificación no tiene en cuenta la certeza de la evidencia, lo que también indica que puede haber poca o ninguna diferencia entre FOM y LOM. Otros tratamientos Tres estudios evaluaron la reoperación versus ninguna reoperación, con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia, e indicaron posibles ventajas en la supervivencia con la reoperación, en el contexto de poder seleccionar candidatos adecuados para esta intervención. Un tratamiento con cannabinoides en las primeras etapas de evaluación, en combinación con TMZ, merece evaluación adicional. Segunda o posterior recidiva La evidencia limitada de tres estudios heterogéneos indicó que la radioterapia con o sin BEV puede tener un efecto beneficioso sobre la supervivencia, pero se necesita más evidencia. La evidencia no fue suficiente para establecer conclusiones sobre la mejor dosis de radioterapia. Otra evidencia indicó que puede haber poca diferencia en la supervivencia con los campos de tratamiento del tumor en comparación con la mejor opción de tratamiento del médico. No se encontró evidencia fiable sobre el mejor tratamiento de apoyo. Eventos adversos graves (EAG) La combinación BEV + LOM se asoció con un riesgo significativamente mayor de EAG que la monoterapia con LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,72 a 3,66; evidencia de certeza alta), y se clasificó peor junto con cediranib + LOM (RR 2,51; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 4,90; evidencia de certeza alta). LOM se clasificó como el mejor y REG como el segundo mejor. Agregar nuevos tratamientos al BEV se asoció generalmente con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves, en comparación con BEV solo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para el tratamiento de la primera recidiva del GBM en personas tratadas previamente con cirugía y quimiorradioterapia estándar, los tratamientos combinados evaluados no mejoraron la supervivencia general en comparación con la monoterapia con LOM, y a menudo se asociaron con un mayor riesgo de eventos adversos graves. Hay evidencia limitada que indica que la reoperación con o sin reirradiación y quimioterapia puede ser adecuada para candidatos seleccionados. La evidencia sobre la segunda recidiva es escasa. La reirradiación con o sin bevacizumab puede ser de valor en determinados individuos, pero se necesita más evidencia.

Utility of Routine Laboratory Biomarkers to Detect COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

No routine laboratory biomarkers perform well enough in diagnosing COVID-19 in isolation for them to be used as a standalone diagnostic test or to help clinicians prioritize patients for treatment. Instead, other diagnostic tests are needed. The aim of this work was to statistically summarise routine laboratory biomarker measurements in COVID-19-positive and -negative patients to inform future work. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed. The search included names of commonly used, routine laboratory tests in the UK NHS, and focused on research papers reporting laboratory results of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. A random effects meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference between COVID-19-positive and -negative groups was conducted for each biomarker. When comparing reported laboratory biomarker results, we identified decreased white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, eosinophil, and platelet counts; while lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were elevated in COVID-19-positive compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Differences were identified across a number of routine laboratory biomarkers between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Further research is required to identify whether routine laboratory biomarkers can be used in the development of a clinical scoring system to aid with triage of patients.

Primary trabeculectomy for advanced glaucoma: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (TAGS).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or primary medical treatment produces better outcomes in term of quality of life, clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 453 adults presenting with newly diagnosed advanced open angle glaucoma in at least one eye (Hodapp classification) between 3 June 2014 and 31 May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Mitomycin C augmented trabeculectomy (n=227) and escalating medical management with intraocular pressure reducing drops (n=226) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: vision specific quality of life measured with Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) at 24 months. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: general health status, glaucoma related quality of life, clinical effectiveness (intraocular pressure, visual field, visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 24 months, the mean VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medical arms were 85.4 (SD 13.8) and 84.5 (16.3), respectively (mean difference 1.06, 95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; P=0.38). Mean intraocular pressure was 12.4 (SD 4.7) mm Hg for trabeculectomy and 15.1 (4.8) mm Hg for medical management (mean difference -2.8 (-3.8 to -1.7) mm Hg; P<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 88 (39%) patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 100 (44%) in the medical management arm (relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.17; P=0.37). Serious side effects were rare. CONCLUSION: Primary trabeculectomy had similar quality of life and safety outcomes and achieved a lower intraocular pressure compared with primary medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Health Technology Assessment (NIHR-HTA) Programme (project number: 12/35/38). ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN56878850.