Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: cohort study for the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The verteporfin photodynamic therapy (VPDT) cohort study aimed to answer five questions: (a) is VPDT in the NHS provided as in randomised trials?; (b) is 'outcome' the same in the nhs as in randomised trials?; (c) is 'outcome' the same for patients ineligible for randomised trials?; (d) is VPDT safe when provided in the NHS?; and (e) how effective and cost-effective is VPDT? DESIGN: Treatment register. SETTING: All hospitals providing VPDT in the NHS. PARTICIPANTS: All patients attending VPDT clinics. INTERVENTIONS: Infusion of verteporfin followed by infrared laser exposure is called VPDT, and is used to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). The VPDT cohort study advised clinicians to follow patients every 3 months during treatment or active observation, retreating based on criteria used in the previous commercial 'TAP' (Treatment of Age-related macular degeneration with Photodynamic therapy) trials of VPDT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution monocular best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA). Secondary outcomes were adverse reactions and events; morphological changes in treated nAMD (wet) lesions; and for a subset of patients, 6-monthly contrast sensitivity, generic and visual health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and resource use. Treated eyes were classified as eligible for the TAP trials (EFT), ineligible (IFT) or unclassifiable (UNC). RESULTS: Forty-seven hospitals submitted data for 8323 treated eyes in 7748 patients; 4919 eyes in 4566 patients were treated more than 1 year before the last data submission or had completed treatment. Of 4043 eyes with nAMD in 4043 patients, 1227 were classified as EFT, 1187 as IFT and 1629 as UNC. HRQoL and resource use data were available for about 2000 patients. The mean number of treatments in years 1 and 2 was 2.3 and 0.4 respectively. About 50% of eyes completed treatment within 1 year. BCVA deterioration in year 1 did not differ between eligibility groups. EFT eyes lost 11.6 letters (95% confidence interval 10.1 to 13.0 letters) compared with 9.9 letters in VPDT-treated eyes in the TAP trials. EFT eyes had poorer BCVA at baseline than IFT and UNC eyes. Adverse reactions and events were reported for 1.4% of first visits - less frequently than those reported in the TAP trials. Associations between BCVA in the best-seeing eye with HRQoL and community health and social care resource use showed that the 11-letter difference in BCVA between VPDT and sham treatment in the TAP trials corresponded to differences in utility of 0.012 and health and social service costs of £60 and £92 in years 1 and 2, respectively. VPDT provided an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £170,000 over 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: VPDT was administered less frequently than in the TAP trials, with less than half of those treated followed up for > 1 year in routine clinical practice. Deterioration in BCVA over time in EFT eyes was similar to that in the TAP trials. The similar falls in BCVA after VPDT across the pre-defined TAP eligibility groups do not mean that the treatment is equally effective in these groups because deterioration in BCVA can be influenced by the parameters that determined group membership. Safety was no worse than in the TAP trials. The estimated cost per QALY was similar to the highest previous estimate. Although VPDT is no longer in use as monotherapy for neovascular AMD, its role as adjunctive treatment has not been fully explored. VPDT also has potential as monotherapy in the management of vascular malformations of the retina and choroid and with trials underway in neovascularisation due to myopia and polypoidal choroidopathy. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Findings of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial and the National Study of Subarachnoid Haemorrhage in context.

Concern has been expressed about the applicability of the findings of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) with respect to the relative effects on outcome of coiling and clipping. It has been suggested that the findings of the National Study of Subarachnoid Haemorrhage may have greater relevance for neurosurgical practice. The objective of this paper was to interpret the findings of these two studies in the context of differences in their study populations, design, execution and analysis. Because of differences in design and analysis, the findings of the two studies are not directly comparable. The ISAT analysed all randomized patients by intention-to-treat, including some who did not undergo a repair, and obtained the primary outcome for 99% of participants. The National Study only analysed participants who underwent clipping or coiling, according to the method of repair, and obtained the primary outcome for 91% of participants. Time to repair was also considered differently in the two studies. The comparison between coiling and clipping was susceptible to confounding in the National Study, but not in the ISAT. The two study populations differed to some extent, but inspection of these differences does not support the view that coiling was applied inappropriately in the National Study. Therefore, there are many reasons why the two studies estimated different sizes of effect. The possibility that there were real, systematic differences in practice between the ISAT and the National Study cannot be ruled out, but such explanations must be seen in the context of other explanations relating to chance, differences in design or analysis, or confounding.

Calcium channel blockers for acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic brain injury is a major cause of death and disability. Calcium channel blockers (calcium antagonists) have been used in an attempt to prevent cerebral vasospasm after injury, maintain blood flow to the brain, and so prevent further damage. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of calcium channel blockers in patients with acute traumatic brain injury, and in a subgroup of brain injury patients with traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage. SEARCH STRATEGY: Handsearching and electronic searching for randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in patients with all levels of severity of clinically diagnosed acute traumatic brain injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the identified studies for eligibility and extracted data from each study. Summary odds ratios were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs were identified as eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The effect of calcium channel blockers on the risk of death was reported in five of the RCTs. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the five studies was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.70-1.17). For the four RCTs that reported death and severe disability (unfavourable outcome), the pooled odds ratio was 0.85 (95%CI 0.68-1.07). In the two RCTs which reported the risk of death in a subgroup of traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage patients, the pooled odds ratio was 0.59 (95%CI 0.37-0.94). Three RCTs reported death and severe disability as an outcome in this subgroup, and the pooled odds ratio was 0.67 (95%CI 0.46-0.98). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of randomised controlled trials of calcium channel blockers in acute traumatic head injury patients shows that considerable uncertainty remains over their effects. The effect of nimodipine in a subgroup of brain injury patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage shows a beneficial effect, though the increase in adverse reactions suffered by the intervention group may mean that the drug is harmful for some patients.

Calcium channel blockers for acute traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic brain injury is a major cause of death and disability. Calcium channel blockers have been used in an attempt to prevent cerebral vasospasm after injury, maintain blood flow to the brain and so prevent further damage. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of calcium channel blockers in patients with acute traumatic brain injury and in a subgroup of brain injury patients with traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage. SEARCH STRATEGY: Hand searching and electronic searching for randomized controlled trials available by October 1997. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in patients with all levels of severity of clinically diagnosed acute traumatic brain injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers (JL and CG) independently assessed the identified studies for eligibility and extracted data from each study. Summary odds ratios were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs were identified as eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The effect of calcium channel blockers on the risk of death was reported in all RCTs. The pooled odds ratio for the four studies was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0. 70 to 1.17). For the three RCTs that reported death and severe disability the pooled odds ratio was 0.85 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.07). In the two RCTs which reported the risk of death in a sub group of traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage patients, the pooled odds ratio was 0.59 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.94). Three RCTs reported death and severe disability as an outcome in this subgroup, and the pooled odds ratio was 0.67 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.98). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of randomized controlled trials of calcium channel blockers in acute traumatic head injury patients shows that considerable uncertainty remains over their effects. The effect of nimodipine in a subgroup of brain injury patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage shows a beneficial effect, though the increase in adverse reactions suffered by the intervention group may mean that the drug is harmful for some patients.

Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: As part of an ongoing project to identify all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the emergency medicine literature, in association with the Cochrane Collaboration, 2 discrete studies were undertaken; the first, to compare motives for active participation in hand searching of the literature by emergency medicine professionals, and the second, to compare hand searching with MEDLINE searching of a number of emergency medicine journals. METHODS: All listed members of the British Association for Emergency Medicine (BAEM) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) received a standard letter outlining the objectives of the project, with 1 of 3 headings assigned on an alternate basis. Recruited volunteers hand searched journals prioritized from the emergency medicine literature. Each issue of each journal was hand searched for RCTs. In addition, a comprehensive MEDLINE search was conducted for each journal. The yields of RCTs from the 2 searching methods were compared for all journals and for each journal individually. RESULTS: No clear motivation for participation in this work could be ascertained because of the low response rates from BAEM and SAEM (10.1% and 1.8%, respectively). Only 18 (29.0%) of the 62 journals identified were indexed by MEDLINE. In the 14 journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, a total of 710 RCTs were identified by a combination of the 2 approaches; of these, 592 (83.4%) were identified by hand searching alone and 483 (68.0%) by MEDLINE searching alone. Both methods identified 365 (51. 4%) RCTs; hand searching revealed an additional 227 (32.0%) that were not identified by MEDLINE searching, and MEDLINE searching found 118 (16.6%) that were not identified by hand searching. The difference between the proportions identified by hand searching and by MEDLINE searching (15.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7% to 17.9%) was statistically significant (McNemar's chi2 test, 1 df, 33. 8; P <.0001). This difference was not significant for 8 of the journals. CONCLUSION: The response rates from mailing to members of the relevant professional organizations letters requesting participation in this work were very low and suggested that such an approach was not cost-effective. However, no formal costing exercise was undertaken. Searching results showed that, in the 14 emergency medicine journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, hand searching led to identification of additional RCTs (primary articles) not found through MEDLINE searching. However, hand searching, although statistically significantly better than MEDLINE searching, failed to identify some of the RCTs found by MEDLINE searching, suggesting that hand searching is not a "gold standard" method and that the dual approach, promoted by the Cochrane Collaboration, may be the optimal approach for journals indexed by MEDLINE.