SeHCAT [tauroselcholic (selenium-75) acid] for the investigation of bile acid malabsorption and measurement of bile acid pool loss: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The principal diagnosis/indication for this assessment is chronic diarrhoea due to bile acid malabsorption (BAM). Diarrhoea can be defined as the abnormal passage of loose or liquid stools more than three times daily and/or a daily stool weight > 200 g per day and is considered to be chronic if it persists for more than 4 weeks. The cause of chronic diarrhoea in adults is often difficult to ascertain and patients may undergo several investigations without a definitive cause being identified. BAM is one of several causes of chronic diarrhoea and results from failure to absorb bile acids (which are required for the absorption of dietary fats and sterols in the intestine) in the distal ileum. OBJECTIVE: For people with chronic diarrhoea with unknown cause and in people with Crohn's disease and chronic diarrhoea with unknown cause (i.e. before resection): (1) What are the effects of selenium-75-homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) compared with no SeHCAT in terms of chronic diarrhoea, other health outcomes and costs? (2) What are the effects of bile acid sequestrants (BASs) compared with no BASs in people with a positive or negative SeHCAT test? (3) Does a positive or negative SeHCAT test predict improvement in terms of chronic diarrhoea, other health outcomes and costs? DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of SeHCAT for the assessment of BAM and the measurement of bile acid pool loss. Search strategies were based on target condition and intervention, as recommended in the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance for undertaking reviews in health care and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. The following databases were searched up to April 2012: MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; EMBASE; the Cochrane Databases; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database; and Science Citation Index. Research registers and conference proceedings were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review methods followed the principles outlined in the CRD guidance for undertaking reviews in health care and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Diagnostic Assessment Programme interim methods statement. In the health economic analysis, the cost-effectiveness of SeHCAT for the assessment of BAM, in patients with chronic diarrhoea, was estimated in two different populations. The first is the population of patients with chronic diarrhoea with unknown cause and symptoms suggestive of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) and the second population concerns patients with Crohn's disease without ileal resection with chronic diarrhoea. For each population, three models were combined: (1) a short-term decision tree that models the diagnostic pathway and initial response to treatment (first 6 months); (2) a long-term Markov model that estimates the lifetime costs and effects for patients initially receiving BAS; and (3) a long-term Markov model that estimates the lifetime costs and effects for patients initially receiving regular treatment (IBS-D treatment in the first population and Crohn's treatment in the second population). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated as additional cost per additional responder in the short term (first 6 months) and per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the long term (lifetime). RESULTS: We found three studies assessing the relationship between the SeHCAT test and response to treatment with cholestyramine. However, the studies had small numbers of patients with unknown cause chronic diarrhoea, and they used different cut-offs to define BAM. For the short term (first 6 months), when trial of treatment is not considered as a comparator, the optimal choice depends on the willingness to pay for an additional responder. For lower values (between £1500 and £4600) the choice will be no SeHCAT in all scenarios; for higher values either SeHCAT 10% or SeHCAT 15% becomes cost-effective. For the lifetime perspective, the various scenarios showed widely differing results: in the threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained we found as optimal choice either no SeHCAT, SeHCAT 5% (only IBS-D) or SeHCAT 15%. When trial of treatment is considered a comparator, the analysis showed that for the short term, trial of treatment is the optimal choice across a range of scenarios. For the lifetime perspective with trial of treatment, again the various scenarios show widely differing results. Depending on the scenario, in the threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained, we found as optimal choice either trial of treatment, no SeHCAT or SeHCAT 15%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the various analyses show that for both populations considerable decision uncertainty exists and that no firm conclusions can be formulated about which strategy is optimal. Standardisation of the definition of a positive SeHCAT test should be the first step in assessing the usefulness of this test. As there is no reference standard for the diagnosis of BAM and SeHCAT testing provides a continuous measure of metabolic function, diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are not the most appropriate study design. However, in studies where all patients are tested with SeHCAT and all patients are treated with BASs, response to treatment can provide a surrogate reference standard; further DTA studies of this type may provide information on the ability of SeHCAT to predict response to BASs. A potentially more informative option would be multivariate regression modelling of treatment response (dependent variable), with SeHCAT result and other candidate clinical predictors as covariates. Such a study design could also inform the definition of a positive SeHCAT result. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001911. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Epidemiology of chronic pain and its treatment in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common; however, good epidemiological data are scarce. Such information can help all the involved stakeholders to make responsible decisions about health budgets and prioritisation. This study aims to provide best-evidence epidemiological information about chronic pain in the Netherlands. METHODS: We performed a systematic search which yielded 16,619 references, 119 Dutch studies were relevant. We selected at least three studies per question that provided the most recent, representative and valid data. RESULTS: The prevalence of moderate to severe general chronic pain among Dutch adults was estimated at 18%. This prevalence was 27% and 55% for any cancer pain. Up to 74% of patients with general or non-cancer chronic pain get treated; this percentage is little higher for patients with cancer pain. A substantial proportion of the patients receive drug treatment for their pain, mainly NSAIDs, but also non-pharmacological interventions for pain are being used. Up to 43% of the chronic non-cancer pain patients report not receiving treatment and up to 79% of the patients believe their pain is inadequately treated. All studies reported a detrimental effect of chronic pain on quality of life, activities of daily living and mental health. Chronic pain is also associated with direct and indirect medical costs, and patients may have decreased income and additional out-of pocket expenses. CONCLUSION: Chronic pain occur s frequently, has a negative impact on the patient and society and treatment may not always be adequate. Chronic pain should be seen as an important public health problem deserving more attention of Dutch healthcare workers and policy makers.

Hearing screening in newborns: systematic review of accuracy, effectiveness, and effects of interventions after screening.

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of universal newborn hearing screening programmes in the detection of hearing impairment. OBJECTIVES: In the absence of randomised trials evaluating whole screening programmes, the study divided the objective into three systematic reviews of non-randomised controlled studies of diagnostic accuracy of screening tests, screening versus no screening, and therapeutic effect of early versus later treatment. METHODS: The authors searched 11 bibliographic databases, and included 17 studies (diagnostic: 9, screening: 2, and treatment: 6). All studies apart from one treatment study showed major quality deficits. Eight diagnostic studies comparing otoacoustic emissions with auditory brainstem response showed sensitivities (and specificities) between 50% (49.1%) and 100% (97.2%). RESULTS: The studies comparing screening versus no screening showed an improvement of speech development of children in the screening group compared with the group without screening. Early treatment was associated with better language development in comparison to children with later treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that there is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding all elements of newborn hearing screening. Early identification and early treatment of children with hearing impairments may be associated with advantages in language development. Other patient-relevant parameters, such as social aspects, quality of life, and educational development, have not been adequately investigated.

Spinal fixation surgery for acute traumatic spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: If the spine is unstable following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), surgical fusion and bracing may be necessary to obtain vertical stability and prevent re-injury of the spinal cord from repeated movement of the unstable bony elements. It has been suggested that this spinal fixation surgery may promote early rehabilitation and mobilisation. OBJECTIVES: To answer the question: is there a difference in functional outcome and other commonly measured outcomes between people who have a spinal cord injury and have had spinal fixation surgery and those who have not? SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched: AMED, CCTR, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HEED, HMIC, MEDLINE, NRR, NHS EED. Searches were updated in May 2003 and MEDLINE was searched again in May 2007. The reference lists of retrieved articles were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials that compared surgical spinal fixation, with or without decompression, to any other treatment, in patients with a traumatic SCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies. One reviewer assessed the quality of the studies and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials or controlled trials were identified that compared surgical spinal fixation surgery to other treatments in patients with a traumatic SCI. All of the studies identified were retrospective observational studies and of poor quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not enable conclusions to be drawn about the benefits or harms of spinal fixation surgery in patients with traumatic SCI. Well-designed, prospective experimental studies with appropriately matched controls are needed.

A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was undertaken and an economic model constructed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis) in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The main comparators considered were other established chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-one resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2005. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and quality assessed. Where appropriate, outcomes were synthesised using formal analytic approaches. A new economic model was developed in order to establish the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel compared with a range of potential comparators. A separate review was undertaken to identify sources of utility data required to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken to explore the robustness of the main analysis to alternative assumptions related to quality of life. Monte Carlo simulation was used to propagate uncertainty in input parameters through the model in such a way that the results of the analysis could be presented with their uncertainty. The impact of uncertainty surrounding the decision was established using value of information and implementation approaches. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria. A direct comparison of docetaxel plus prednisone versus mitoxantrone plus prednisone in an open-label randomised trial showed improved outcomes for docetaxel plus prednisone in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain and prostate-specific antigen decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel: docetaxel plus estramustine and docetaxel plus prednisone plus estramustine, also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Indirect comparison suggested that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be superior to corticosteroids alone in terms of overall survival. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness were primarily informed by the results of the in-house model. This indicated that mitoxantrone plus a corticosteroid is probably cheaper and more effective than corticosteroid alone. Compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone/prednisolone, the use of docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone (3-weekly) appears cost-effective only if the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with docetaxel plus prednisone (3-weekly) remained fairly robust to these variations with estimates ranging from 28,000 pounds to 33,000 pounds per QALY. Value of information analysis revealed that further research is potentially valuable. Given a maximum acceptable ratio of 30,000 pounds per QALY, the expected value of information was estimated to be approximately 13 million pounds. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of the research suggests that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be the most effective treatment for men with mHRPC. The economic model suggests that treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone is cost-effective in patients with mHRPC provided the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per additional QALY. Future research should include the direct assessment of quality of life and utility gain associated with different treatments, including the effect of adverse events of treatment, using generic instruments, which are suitable for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with an inadequate response to standard treatment (including DMARD therapy). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The literature search covered a range of 13 medical databases and submissions were provided by the manufacturers of etanercept and infliximab. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of etanercept or infliximab that reported outcomes of disease activity in PsA were reviewed. RESULTS: There were two good quality double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs each for etanercept and infliximab. The results demonstrated that after initial treatment (12 weeks for etanercept and 14 or 16 weeks for infliximab) both drugs had statistically significant beneficial effects compared with placebo on ACR 20, 50 and 70, PsARC and HAQ scores. Efficacy was not dependent upon concomitant methotrexate. Results at 24 weeks indicated that the response to treatment is maintained. Effects on psoriasis were beneficial, particularly with infliximab. Uncontrolled radiographic assessment data at one year indicated a beneficial effect of both etanercept and infliximab on the progression of joint disease. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that both etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. There are limited data indicating that etanercept and infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Further long-term data are required to confirm and consolidate the evidence base for both drugs.

Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases and several Internet resources were searched up to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of the efficacy, safety and economic reviews of etanercept and efalizumab. An existing systematic review of the efficacy and safety of other treatments was also updated. Economic models supplied by the manufacturers of etanercept and efalizumab were critiqued. An economic model was then developed of etanercept and efalizumab in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. RESULTS: The review of the clinical evidence identified a total of 39 published and three unpublished studies: eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of etanercept (three trials) and efalizumab (five); 10 studies of the adverse effects of the interventions; and 24 RCTs of the efficacy of the other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. The trials of the efficacy of the interventions were all double-blind and placebo-controlled trials and generally of good quality, but three of the five efalizumab trials were poorly reported. A total of 1347 patients were included in the etanercept trials and 2963 in the efalizumab trials. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 25 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from three RCTs. On average, active treatment resulted in 62% of patients achieving a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 33% achieving a PASI 75, 11% achieving a PASI 90 and 40% were assessed as clear or almost clear. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. Improvement in quality of life as assessed by mean percentage change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was around 59% with etanercept 25 mg twice a week compared with 9% with placebo, and all mean differences that could be calculated were statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. Data on the efficacy of etanercept 50 mg twice a week for 12 weeks were available from two RCTs. Across the two trials, the proportion of patients achieving PASI 50, 75 and 90 was 76, 49 and 21%, respectively; the pooled relative risks were all statistically significantly in favour of etanercept. The findings for mean PASI after treatment, mean percentage change in PASI from baseline and mean percentage change in DLQI also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept treatment. Evidence from one RCT indicates that the response to etanercept is maintained post-treatment, at least in the medium term, and data from uncontrolled follow-up phases reflect and extend these findings. Efalizumab at a dose of 1 mg/kg once a week subcutaneously was studied in five RCTs. Across these trials, 12 weeks of active treatment resulted in an average of 55% of patients achieving PASI 50, 27% PASI 75, 4.3% PASI 90 and 27% clear or minimal psoriasis status. These figures are not adjusted for changes relative to placebo. There is no evidence from RCTs that the response to efalizumab 1 mg/kg once a week is maintained when treatment continues beyond 12 weeks, and long-term follow-up data relate to a range of doses and are poorly reported and so cannot be used to draw even tentative conclusions regarding the long-term efficacy of efalizumab. Uncontrolled data from trial follow-up suggest that time to relapse may be around 60 days. No data indicating the existence or absence of any rebound in psoriasis after discontinuation of efalizumab were identified. There is no evidence relating to the efficacy of efalizumab upon retreatment. A mixed treatment comparison analysis found a higher response rate in terms of PASI 50, 75 and 90 with etanercept than with efalizumab. Injection site reactions appear to be the most common adverse effects of etanercept. Overall, etanercept appears to be well tolerated in short- and long-term use, although many of the long-term data are not from patients with psoriasis. Headache, chills and, to a lesser extent, nausea, myalgia, pain and fever are the common adverse events associated with efalizumab. Overall, withdrawal rates due to adverse events are low. Longer term data for efalizumab are not readily available for evaluation, but the adverse events data up to 3 years appear to reflect those over 12 weeks and to remain stable. Unfortunately, few data for serious infections and serious adverse events with efalizumab are available. For the primary analysis comparing etanercept, efalizumab and supportive care, the results of the York Model suggest that the biological therapies would only be cost-effective for all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis if the NHS were willing to pay over pound 60,000 per QALY gained. In patients with poor baseline quality of life (fourth quartile DLQI), efalizumab, etanercept 25 mg (intermittent), etanercept 25 mg (continuous) and etanercept 50 mg (intermittent) would be cost-effective as part of a treatment sequence if the NHS were willing to pay pound 45,000, pound 35,000, pound 45,000 and pound 65,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In patients who are also at high risk of inpatient hospitalisation (21 days per annum), these therapies would be cost-effective as part of a sequence as long as the NHS were willingness to pay pound 25,000, pound 20,000, pound 25,000 and pound 45,000 per QALY gained, respectively. As part of a secondary analysis including a wider range of systemic therapies as comparators, the York Model found that it would only be cost-effective to use etanercept and efalizumab in a sequence after methotrexate, ciclosporin and Fumaderm. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data indicate that both etanercept and efalizumab are efficacious in patients who are eligible for systemic therapy, but the economic evaluation demonstrates that these biological therapies are likely to be cost-effective only in patients with poor baseline QoL and who are at risk of hospitalisation. Efficacy trials conducted in the specific population for which etanercept and efalizumab are licensed are required, as are long-term comparisons of etanercept and efalizumab with other treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. Long-term efficacy trials and safety/tolerability data for patients treated with etanercept or efalizumab are required, as are trials on the response of specific subtypes of psoriasis to different drugs. Research on the rate of inpatient hospitalisation in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis is warranted, and the effect of treatment on this rate.

Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of active and progressive psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who have inadequate response to standard treatment, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2004. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review evaluated the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of etanercept and infliximab. The efficacy of DMARDs in the treatment of PsA was also reviewed and treatments were compared using Bayesian evidence synthesis methods. Following evaluation of existing economic evaluations of etanercept and infliximab in PsA, a new economic model was developed (the York Model). This utilised the results from the evidence synthesis and data from a range of other sources. RESULTS: Across the two trials, at 12 weeks, around 65% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 {pooled relative risk (RR) 4.19 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.74 to 6.42]}, demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. In addition, around 45% of patients treated with etanercept achieved an ACR 50 [pooled RR 10.84 (95% CI 4.47 to 26.28)] and around 12% achieved an ACR 70 [pooled RR 16.28 (95% CI 2.20 to 120.54)], demonstrating a good level of efficacy. The subgroup analyses conducted in one trial revealed that the effect of etanercept was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. In addition, almost 85% of patients treated with etanercept achieved a Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) [pooled RR 2.60 (95% CI 1.96 to 3.45). The Psoriatic Area and Severity Index (PASI) results indicate some beneficial effect on psoriasis at 12 weeks; however, the data are sparse. The statistically significant reduction (improvement) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score with etanercept compared with placebo indicates a beneficial effect of etanercept on function. Similar results were seen at 24 weeks, except that the results for PASI 75 and PASI 50 now achieved statistical significance and data for Total Sharp Score annualised rate of progression were available; this was statistically significantly lower in etanercept-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients. Uncontrolled follow-up of patients indicates that treatment benefit may be maintained for at least 50 weeks. At 16 weeks, 65% of patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 20 [RR 6.80 (95% CI 2.89 to 16.01)], demonstrating a basic degree of efficacy in terms of arthritis-related symptoms. This level of efficacy was not dependent upon patients' concomitant use of methotrexate. Almost half the patients treated with infliximab achieved an ACR 50 [RR 49.00 (95% CI 3.06 to 785.06)] and over one-quarter achieved an ACR 70 [RR 31.00 (95% CI 1.90 to 504.86)] compared with none of the placebo group, demonstrating a good level of efficacy. In addition, 75% of patients treated with infliximab achieved a PsARC [RR 3.55 (95% CI 2.05 to 6.13)]. The beneficial treatment effect on psoriasis was also statistically significant with a mean difference in percentage change from baseline in PASI of -5 (95% CI -6.8 to -3.3), as was the percentage improvement from baseline in HAQ score with infliximab compared with placebo [mean difference 51.4 (95% CI 48.08 to 54.72)], indicating a beneficial effect of infliximab on functional status. Uncontrolled data from all measures of joint disease, psoriasis and HAQ collected up to 50 weeks of follow-up reflect those at 16 weeks. There were no radiographic assessments, so nothing can be determined about the potential or otherwise of infliximab to delay the progression of joint disease. Using the York cost-effectiveness model, infliximab was consistently dominated by etanercept because of its higher acquisition and administration costs without superior effectiveness. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of etanercept compared with palliative care ranged from 14,818 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,374 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) if it is assumed that, when patients eventually fail on biological therapy, their disability (in terms of HAQ score) deteriorates by the same amount as it improved when they initially respond to treatment (rebound equal to gain). Results for etanercept ranged from 25,443 pounds (females, 40-year time horizon) to 49,441 pounds (males, 1-year time horizon) per QALY gained under the assumption that, when patients fail on therapy, their disability level returns to what it would have been had they never responded (rebound equal to natural history). CONCLUSIONS: The limited data available indicated that etanercept and infliximab are efficacious in the treatment of PsA with beneficial effects on both joint and psoriasis symptoms and on functional status. Short-term data indicated that etanercept can delay joint disease progression, but long-term data are needed. There are no controlled data as yet to indicate that infliximab can delay joint disease progression. Treatment with both etanercept and infliximab for 12 weeks demonstrated a significant degree of efficacy, with no statistically significant difference between them. For both drugs, adverse events were common with mild injection/infusion reactions being the main treatment-related effect. The York model indicated that etanercept is more cost-effective than infliximab as it has a lower cost with little difference in outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of etanercept is also sensitive to assumptions made about the extent of disease progression when patients are responding to therapy. The number of years for which a patient can be safely on biologicals is uncertain so these results should be considered with caution. Further research should include long-term controlled trials to confirm benefits, review adverse events and to explore further the implications of biologic therapy.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of docetaxel and mitoxantrone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisolone (docetaxel is licensed in the UK for use in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Prednisone is not used in the UK, but it is reasonable to use docetaxel plus prednisone data in this review of docetaxel plus prednisolone) for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. A scoping search identified a trial of docetaxel plus prednisone vs mitoxantrone plus prednisone, but did not identify any trials comparing docetaxel plus prednisolone/prednisone with any other treatments. Therefore, we considered additional indirect evidence that would enable a comparison of docetaxel plus prednisolone/prednisone with other chemotherapy regimens and active supportive care. Systematic searching (upto April 2005) identified seven randomised controlled trials. One large well-conducted trial assessed docetaxel plus prednisone vs mitoxantrone plus prednisone; this showed statistically significant improvements with 3-weekly docetaxel in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain response and PSA decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel with estramustine also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Three trials that compared mitoxantrone plus corticosteroids with corticosteroids alone were identified and their results for overall survival combined, which showed very little difference between the two groups. The addition of clodronate to mitoxantrone plus prednisone showed no significant differences in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone alone. The evidence suggests that chemotherapy regimens containing 3-weekly docetaxel are superior to mitoxantrone or corticosteroids alone.

A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oral methylphenidate hydrochloride (MPH), dexamfetaminesulphate (DEX) and atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents (<18 years of age) diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (including hyperkinetic disorder). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering 1999--July 2004 for MPH, 1997--July 2004 for DEX and 1981--July 2004 for ATX. REVIEW METHODS: Selected studies were assessed using modified criteria based on CRD Report No. 4. Clinical effectiveness data were reported separately for each drug and by the type of comparison. Data for MPH were also analysed separately based on whether it was administered as an immediate release (IR) or extended release (ER) formulation. For all drugs, the data were examined by dose. Data for the core outcomes of hyperactivity (using any scale), Clinical Global Impression [as a proxy of quality of life (QoL)] and adverse events were reported. For crossover studies, the mean and standard deviation (SD) for each outcome were data extracted for end of trial data (i.e. baseline data were not considered). For parallel studies, change scores were reported where given, otherwise means and SDs were presented for end of trial data. In addition, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each study. For adverse events, self-ratings were reported when used, otherwise, parent reports were utilised. Percentages of participants reporting adverse events were used to calculate numbers of events in each treatment arm. All the clinical effectiveness data and economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. A new model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative treatments in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year. To achieve this, a mixed treatment comparison model was used to estimate the differential mean response rates. Monte Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: In total, 65 papers met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that MPH and DEX are effective at reducing hyperactivity and improving QoL (as determined by Clinical Global Impression) in children, although the reliability of the MPH study results is not known and there were only a small number of DEX studies. There was consistent evidence that ATX was superior to placebo for hyperactivity and Clinical Global Impression. Studies on ATX more often reported the study methodology well, and the results were likely to be reliable. Very few studies made direct head-to-head comparisons between the drugs or examined a non-drug intervention in combination with MPH, DEX or ATX. Adequate and informative data regarding the potential adverse effects of the drugs were also lacking. The results of the economic evaluation clearly identified an optimal treatment strategy of DEX first-line, followed by IR-MPH for treatment failures, followed by ATX for repeat treatment failures. Where DEX is unsuitable as a first-line therapy, the optimal strategy is IR-MPH first-line, followed by DEX and then ATX. For patients contraindicated to stimulants, ATX is preferred to no treatment. For patients in whom a midday dose of medication is unworkable, ER-MPH is preferred to ATX, and ER-MPH12 appears more cost-effective than ER-MPH8. As identified in the clinical effectiveness review, the reporting of studies was poor, therefore this should be borne in mind when interpreting the model results. CONCLUSIONS: Drug therapy seems to be superior to no drug therapy, no significant differences between the various drugs in terms of efficacy or side effects were found, mainly owing to lack of evidence, and the additional benefits from behavioural therapy (in combination with drug therapy) are uncertain. Given the lack of evidence for any differences in effectiveness between the drugs, the economic model tended to be driven by drug costs, which differed considerably. Future trials examining MPH, DEX and ATX should include the assessment of tolerability and safety as a priority. Longer term follow-up of individuals participating in trials could further inform policy makers and health professionals. Such data could potentially distinguish between these drugs in a clinically useful way. In addition, research examining whether somatic complaints are actually related to drug treatment or to the disorder itself would be informative.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.

Systematic review of effectiveness of different treatments for childhood retinoblastoma.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2004. REVIEW METHODS: Studies of participants diagnosed with childhood retinoblastoma, any interventions and all clinical outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials and cohort studies with clear comparisons between treatment groups were included. Methodological quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Where possible, studies assessing common interventions were grouped together, with prospective and retrospective studies grouped separately. Emphasis was placed on prospective studies. RESULTS: Thirty-one individual studies, from 42 publications, were included in the review. Apart from one non-randomised controlled trial, only comparative studies of observational design were available for any of the treatments. Four of the included studies were prospective and the remaining 27 were retrospective. Most of the studies were of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, with few studies available on enucleation or focal treatments such as brachytherapy, photocoagulation, cryotherapy and thermotherapy. The methodological quality was generally poor, with a high risk of bias in all included studies. The main problems were in relation to how treatment was allocated and lack of consideration of potentially confounding factors, such as initial disease severity, in the study design and data analysis. The evidence base for effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is extremely limited. Owing to the considerable limitations of the evidence identified, it was not possible to make meaningful and robust conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different treatment approaches for childhood retinoblastoma. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' opinion, the evidence base for the effectiveness of treatments for childhood retinoblastoma is not sufficiently robust to provide clear guidance for clinical practice. Ideally, good-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different treatment options for childhood retinoblastoma are required. Research is required on all the treatments currently used for this condition. Where RCTs are not feasible, for ethical or practical reasons, only high-quality, prospective, non-randomised studies should be given consideration, owing to the generally higher risk of bias in retrospective studies. To reduce the risk of confounding due to allocation by clinical indication, studies should compare patients with similar disease severity rather than compare patients of mixed disease severities. Standardised outcomes should be agreed for use in studies assessing the effectiveness of treatment. These outcomes should encompass potential important adverse effects of treatment such as loss of visual acuity and cosmetic outcome, as well as beneficial effects.

Sensitivity to change of AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF components in comparison to M-HAQ and VAS-pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine sensitivity to change of Dutch versions of AIMS2 (arthritis impact measurement scales-2) and AIMS2-SF (short form) components, in comparison with M-HAQ (modified health assessment questionnaire) and the 100 mm visual analogue scale for pain (VAS-pain) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: 218 patients participated in a study on patient education. Participants completed the Dutch AIMS2, M-HAQ, and VAS-pain at baseline and after one year; 165 completed both assessments. The education programme did not have any effect on health status. Patients were classified according to change over one year in their responses to the AIMS2 question about general health perception: improved health (n = 32), no change (n = 101), and poorer health (n = 32). Changes in scores over one year were tested with paired t tests, and standardised response means were calculated for AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF components, M-HAQ total score, and VAS-pain in the three classifications of change in health perception. RESULTS: AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF physical, symptom, and affect components showed similar sensitivity to change. The physical and symptom components performed better than M-HAQ and VAS-pain. AIMS2 and AIMS2-SF social interaction and role components were not sensitive to changes in general health perception. The role component was only applicable in 63 patients, because the others were unemployed, disabled, or retired. CONCLUSIONS: AIMS2-SF is a good alternative to the AIMS2 long form for the assessment of health status in rheumatoid arthritis, and is preferable to M-HAQ and VAS-pain. Use of the AIMS2-SF makes it easier and less costly to collect data and reduces the burden on patients.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative antiplatelet agents, clopidogrel and modified-release (MR)-dipyridamole, relative to prophylactic doses of aspirin for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A total of 2906 titles and abstracts were rigorously screened and 441 studies were assessed in detail. Two RCTs were identified. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, eight reviews were identified. The results were presented in structured tables and as a narrative summary. No additional clinical effectiveness data were presented in either of two company submissions. All economic evaluations (including accompanying models) included in the company submissions were assessed. Following this analysis, if the existing models (company or published) were not sufficient, a de novo model or modified versions of the models were developed. RESULTS: In the CAPRIE trial the point estimate for the primary outcome, i.e. ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or vascular death, favoured clopidogrel over aspirin, but the boundaries of the confidence intervals raise the possibility that clopidogrel is not more beneficial than aspirin. In terms of the secondary outcomes reported, there was a non-significant trend in favour of clopidogrel over aspirin but the boundaries of the confidence intervals on the relative risks all crossed unity. There was no difference in the number of patients ever reporting any bleeding disorder in the clopidogrel group compared with the aspirin group. The incidences of rash and diarrhoea were statistically significantly higher in the clopidogrel group than the aspirin group. Patients in the aspirin group had a higher incidence of indigestion/nausea/vomiting than patients in the clopidogrel group. Haematological adverse events were rare in both the clopidogrel and aspirin groups. No cases of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura were reported in either group. Treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone did not significantly reduce the risk of any of the primary outcomes reported in ESPS-2 compared with treatment with aspirin. ASA-MR-dipyridamole was significantly more effective than aspirin alone in patients with stroke or transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) at reducing the outcome of stroke and marginally more effective at reducing stroke and/or death. Treatment with ASA-MR-dipyridamole did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of death compared to treatment with aspirin. The number of strokes was statistically significantly reduced in the ASA-MR-dipyridamole group compared with the MR-dipyridamole group. In terms of the other primary outcomes, stroke and/or death and death, the results favoured treatment with ASA-MR-dipyridamole but the findings were not statistically significant. There was no difference in the number of bleeding complications between the ASA-MR-dipyridamole and aspirin groups. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly lower in the MR-dipyridamole treatment group. More patients in the MR-dipyridamole treatment groups experienced headaches compared to patients receiving treatment with aspirin alone. The York model assessed the cost-effectiveness of differing combinations of treatment strategies in four patient subgroups, under a number of different scenarios. The results of the model were sensitive to the assumptions made in the alternative scenarios, in particular the impact of therapy on non-vascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel was marginally more effective than aspirin at reducing the risk of ischaemic stroke, MI or vascular death in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, however, it did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of vascular death or death from any cause compared with aspirin. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of bleeding complications experienced in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups. MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin was superior to aspirin alone at reducing the risk of stroke and marginally more effective at reducing the risk of stroke and/or death. Compared with treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone, MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin significantly reduced the risk of stroke. Treatment with MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin did not statistically significantly reduce the risk of death compared with aspirin. Compared with treatment with MR-dipyridamole alone, bleeding complications were statistically significantly higher in patients treated with aspirin and MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin. Due to the assumptions that have to be made, no conclusions could be drawn about the relative effectiveness of MR-dipyridamole, alone or in combination with aspirin, and clopidogrel from the adjusted indirect comparison. The following would apply for a cost of up to GBP20,000-40,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year. For the stroke and TIA subgroups, ASA-MR-dipyridamole would be the most cost-effective therapy given a 2-year treatment duration as long as all patients were not left disabled by their initial (qualifying) stroke. For a lifetime treatment duration, ASA-MR-dipyridamole would be considered more cost-effective than aspirin as long as treatment effects on non-vascular deaths are not considered and all patients were not left disabled by their initial stroke. In patients left disabled by their initial stroke, aspirin is the most cost-effective therapy. Clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole alone would not be considered cost-effective under any scenario. For the MI and peripheral arterial disease subgroups, clopidogrel would be considered cost-effective for a treatment duration of 2 years. For a lifetime treatment duration, clopidogrel would be considered more cost-effective than aspirin as long as treatment effects on non-vascular deaths are not considered. It is suggested that the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin should be evaluated for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events. Also randomised, direct comparisons of clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole in combination with aspirin are required to inform the treatment of patients with a history of stroke and TIA, plus trials that compare treatment with clopidogrel and MR-dipyridamole for the secondary prevention of vascular events in patients who demonstrate a genuine intolerance to aspirin.

Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel used in combination with standard therapy including aspirin, compared with standard therapy alone for the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Manufacturers' submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were selected using rigorous criteria. The quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed according to criteria based on NHS CRD Report No. 4, and the quality of systematic reviews was assessed according to the guidelines for the Database of Reviews of Effect (DARE) criteria. The quality of economic evaluations was assessed according to a specifically tailored checklist. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in combination with standard therapy compared with standard therapy alone were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of the included studies. In the economic evaluations, a cost-effectiveness model was constructed using the best available evidence to determine cost-effectiveness in a UK setting. RESULTS: One RCT (the CURE trial) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of high quality and showed that clopidogrel in addition to aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo plus aspirin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS for the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke over the 9-month treatment period. However, clopidogrel was associated with a significantly higher number of episodes of both major and minor bleeding. The results from the five systematic reviews that assessed the adverse events associated with long-term aspirin use showed that aspirin was associated with a significantly higher incidence of haemorrhagic stroke, extracranial haemorrhage and gastrointestinal haemorrhage compared with placebo. Of the cost-effectiveness evidence reviewed, only the manufacturer's submission was considered relevant from the perspective of the NHS. The review of this evidence highlighted potential limitations within the submission in its use of data and in the model structure used. These limitations led to the development of a new model with the aim of providing a more reliable estimate of the cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. This model indicated that clopidogrel appears cost-effective compared with standard care alone in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS as long as the NHS is willing to pay GBP6078 per quality of life year (QALY). The results were most sensitive to the inclusion of additional strategies that assessed alternative treatment durations with clopidogrel. Although treatment with clopidogrel for 12 months remained cost-effective for the overall cohort, provisional findings indicate that the shorter treatment durations may be more cost-effective in patients at low risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the CURE trial indicate that clopidogrel in combination with aspirin was significantly more effective than placebo combined with aspirin in a wide range of patients with ACS. This benefit was largely related to a reduction in Q-wave myocardial infarction. There was no statistically significant benefit in relation to mortality. The trial data suggested that a substantial part of the benefit derived from clopidogrel is achieved by 3 months, with a further small benefit over the remaining 9 months of chronic treatment. The results from the base-case model suggest that treatment with clopidogrel as an adjunct to standard therapy (including aspirin) for 12 months, compared with standard therapy alone, is cost-effective in non-ST elevation ACS patients as long as the health service is willing to pay GBP6078 per additional QALY. However, although treatment with clopidogrel for 12 months remained cost-effective for the overall cohort, provisional findings indicate that the shorter treatment durations may be more cost-effective in patients at low risk. To estimate the exact length of time that clopidogrel in addition to standard therapy should be prescribed for patients with non-ST-segment ACS would require a prospective trial that randomised patients to various durations of therapy. This would accurately assess whether a 'rebound' phenomenon occurs in patients if clopidogrel were stopped after 3 months of treatment.

Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To identify existing guidelines and develop a synthesised guideline plus accompanying checklist. In addition to provide guidance on key theoretical, methodological and practical issues and consider the implications of this research for what might be expected of future decision-analytic models. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of existing good practice guidelines was undertaken to identify and summarise guidelines currently available for assessing the quality of decision-analytic models that have been undertaken for health technology assessment. A synthesised good practice guidance and accompanying checklist was developed. Two specific methods areas in decision modelling were considered. The first method's topic is the identification of parameter estimates from published literature. Parameter searches were developed and piloted using a case-study model. The second topic relates to bias in parameter estimates; that is, how to adjust estimates of treatment effect from observational studies where there are risks of selection bias. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify those studies looking at quantification of bias in parameter estimates and the implication of this bias. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and consolidated into a single set of brief statements of good practice. From this, a checklist was developed and applied to three independent decision-analytic models. Although the checklist provided excellent guidance on some key issues for model evaluation, it was too general to pick up on the specific nuances of each model. The searches that were developed helped to identify important data for inclusion in the model. However, the quality of life searches proved to be problematic: the published search filters did not focus on those measures specific to cost-effectiveness analysis and although the strategies developed as part of this project were more successful few data were found. Of the 11 studies meeting the criteria on the effect of selection bias, five concluded that a non-randomised trial design is associated with bias and six studies found 'similar' estimates of treatment effects from observational studies or non-randomised clinical trials and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One purpose of developing the synthesised guideline and checklist was to provide a framework for critical appraisal by the various parties involved in the health technology assessment process. First, the guideline and checklist can be used by groups that are reviewing other analysts' models and, secondly, the guideline and checklist could be used by the various analysts as they develop their models (to use it as a check on how they are developing and reporting their analyses). The Expert Advisory Group (EAG) that was convened to discuss the potential role of the guidance and checklist felt that, in general, the guidance and checklist would be a useful tool, although the checklist is not meant to be used exclusively to determine a model's quality, and so should not be used as a substitute for critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The review of current guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, in other areas conflicting attributes are presented in different guidelines. In general, the checklist appears to perform well, in terms of identifying those aspects of the model that should be of particular concern to the reader. The checklist cannot, however, provide answers to the appropriateness of the model structure and structural assumptions, as these may be seen as a general problem with generic checklists and do not reflect any shortcoming with the synthesised guidance and checklist developed here. The assessment of the checklist, as well as feedback from the EAG, indicated the importance of its use in conjunction with a more general checklist or guidelines on economic evaluation. Further methods research into the following areas would be valuable: the quantification of selection bias in non-controlled studies and in controlled observational studies; the level of bias in the different non-RCT study designs; a comparison of results from RCTs with those from other non-randomised studies; assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative ways to adjust for bias in a decision model; and how to prioritise searching for parameter estimates.

A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases; industry submissions made to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised trials and economic evaluations that evaluated the effectiveness of quetiapine, olanzapine or valproate semisodium in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder were selected for inclusion. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a Microsoft Access database and checked for quality and accuracy by a second. The quality of the cost-effectiveness studies was assessed using a checklist updated from that developed by Drummond and colleagues. Relative risk and mean difference data were presented as Forest plots but only pooled where this made sense clinically and statistically. Studies were grouped by drug and, within each drug, by comparator used. Chi-squared tests of heterogeneity were performed for the outcomes if pooling was indicated. A probabilistic model was developed to estimate costs from the perspective of the NHS, and health outcomes in terms of response rate, based on an improvement of at least 50% in a patient's baseline manic symptoms derived from an interview-based mania assessment scale. The model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the alternative drugs when used as part of treatment for the acute manic episode only. RESULTS: Eighteen randomised trials met the inclusion criteria. Aspects of three of the quetiapine studies were commercial-in-confidence. The quality of the included trials was limited and overall, key methodological criteria were not met in most trials. Quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior to placebo in reducing manic symptoms, but may cause side-effects. There appears to be little difference between these treatments and lithium in terms of effectiveness, but quetiapine is associated with somnolence and weight gain, whereas lithium is associated with tremor. Olanzapine as adjunct therapy to mood stabilisers may be more effective than placebo in reducing mania and improving global health, but it is associated with more dry mouth, somnolence, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor and speech disorder. There was little difference between these treatments and haloperidol in reducing mania, but haloperidol was associated with more extrapyramidal side-effects and negative implications for health-related quality of life. Intramuscular olanzapine and lorazepam were equally effective and safe in one very short (24 hour) trial. Valproate semisodium and carbamazepine were equally effective and safe in one small trial in children. Olanzapine may be more effective than valproate semisodium in reducing mania, but was associated with more dry mouth, increased appetite, oedema, somnolence, speech disorder, Parkinson-like symptoms and weight gain. Valproate semisodium was associated with more nausea than olanzapine. The results from the base-case analysis demonstrate that choice of optimal strategy is dependent on the maximum that the health service is prepared to pay per additional responder. For a figure of less than 7179 British pounds per additional responder, haloperidol is the optimal decision; for a spend in excess of this, it would be olanzapine. Under the most favourable scenario in relation to the costs of responders and non-responders beyond the 3-week period considered in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olanzapine is reduced to 1236 British pounds. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with placebo, quetiapine, olanzapine and valproate semisodium appear superior in reducing manic symptoms, but all drugs are associated with adverse events. In comparison with lithium, no significant differences were found between the three drugs in terms of effectiveness, and all were associated with adverse events. Several limitations of the cost-effectiveness analysis exist, which inevitably means that the results should be treated with some caution. There remains a need for well-conducted, randomised, double-blind head-to-head comparisons of drugs used in the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder and their cost-effectiveness. Participant demographic, diagnostic characteristics, the treatment of mania in children, the use of adjunctive therapy and long-term safety issues in the elderly population, and acute and long-term treatment are also subjects for further study.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of orlistat used for the management of obesity.

The aim of this paper is to assess the clinical effectiveness of orlistat used for the management of obesity. Nineteen electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of orlistat for weight loss or maintenance of weight loss in overweight or obese patients. Each included trial was assessed for methodological quality. Statistical pooling was performed when trials were considered to be sufficiently similar. Twenty-three trials were eligible for inclusion. Placebo-controlled trials recruiting patients with uncomplicated obesity reported statistically significant differences in favour of orlistat for weight loss and changes in obesity-related risk factors at all time points. Trials in obese patients with defined risk factors at baseline showed similar results, however, smaller effect sizes were observed in patients with type 2 diabetes. The effectiveness of orlistat relative to other anti-obesity drugs is currently unclear. When orlistat was added to simvastatin, this proved to be more effective for weight loss than either drug used individually. Orlistat use is associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo. In conclusion, orlistat is more effective than placebo in promoting weight loss, maintenance of weight loss, and improving cardiovascular risk factor profiles. Baseline parameters of patients seen in clinical practice should be taken into account when considering treatment.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine (Xeloda) for locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral capecitabine for locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer in relation to its licensed indications. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-three electronic databases and other databases of ongoing research and Internet resources, bibliographies of retrieved articles and industry submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened and assessed all titles and/or abstracts including economic evaluations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that investigated capecitabine monotherapy, in patients pretreated with an anthracycline-containing regimen or a taxane, or capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, in patients pretreated with an anthracycline-containing regimen, were included. The economic evaluation was based on data reported in the manufacturer's submission. RESULTS: For capecitabine monotherapy, 12 uncontrolled observational studies were identified. The methodological quality of the studies was low. Capecitabine demonstrated antitumour activity, but was associated with a particular risk of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea. Economic evaluation was hampered by the poor quality of the published studies, but compared indirectly with vinorelbine, capecitabine was associated with lower costs and improved patient outcomes. For capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, one RCT was identified. Combination therapy was superior to single-agent docetaxel in terms of survival, time to disease progression and overall response. Adverse events occurred more frequently with combination therapy. The economic evaluation demonstrated an overall improved QALY score for combination therapy with a slight reduction in costs. CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions could be drawn regarding the therapeutic benefit of capecitabine monotherapy; RCTs are required. Capecitabine appeared cost-effective compared with vinorelbine, but serious doubts remain; the poor quality of the trials may invalidate this conclusion. Based on limited evidence, combination therapy was more effective than single-agent docetaxel and likely to be cost-effective, but was associated with higher incidences of hand-foot syndrome, nausea, diarrhoea and stomatitis.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acute hospital-based spinal cord injuries services: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine four key areas: (1) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal fixation surgery, (2) the consequences of immediate versus delayed referral to a spinal injuries unit (SIU), (3) the number of people with a new spinal cord injury (SCI) who are discharged from hospital without ever being transferred to an SIU, and (4) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of steroids for people with SCI. DATA SOURCES: Searches were carried out on several databases and also on the Internet. Specialist SCI and spinal injury related websites were searched, specifically the Spinal Injuries Association, the British Association of Spinal Cord Injury Specialists and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. REVIEW METHODS: Three separate search strategies were devised to find studies relating to the four key areas. Two reviewers independently screened all study citations for inclusion. The lists of all retrieved studies were scanned for additional studies. Quality of studies was assessed and data were extracted by one reviewer then checked by the second. Data from included studies were summarised within each key area. For dichotomous data, relative risks were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Pooled relative risks were calculated as appropriate. For continuous data, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and, if data were pooled, weighted mean differences were calculated. Searches were carried out to identify economic evaluations, details of these together with a critical appraisal of quality are presented in structured tables. Quality was assessed using a checklist supplemented with additional comments on the adequacy of methodology where appropriate. RESULTS: For spinal fixation versus no fixation, 68 retrospective observational studies were found that suggested some benefits of fixation surgery. Only four studies were found on fixation surgery in SIUs compared with non-SIU hospitals and no significant differences were seen. All 28 studies concerning delayed referral to a SIU were retrospective observational studies. In most, study details were poorly reported and there was doubt over the comparability of groups at baseline and on confounding factors. Times of referral and transfer were not reported separately. Evidence suggested an effect in favour of the SIU group for neurological improvement. No relevant published studies of any design were found regarding how many people with a new SCI are discharged from hospital without ever being transferred to an SIU. Two systematic reviews were found that assessed the effectiveness of steroids. No studies were identified that considered both costs and the impact on patient outcomes of a given intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was evidence to suggest some benefits of fixation surgery and also a benefit of immediate referral to SIUs compared with delayed or no referral, owing to the limitations of the data these should be interpreted with caution. Not enough data were found to assess whether surgery is more beneficial when carried out in SIUs and further research is required in this area. Well-designed prospective observational studies with appropriately matched controls are needed. High-dose methylprednisolone steroid therapy may be effective in promoting some degree of neurological recovery if given within 8 hours of injury. There is a need for more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapy for acute SCI. No published studies of any design were found to answer the question of how many people with acute SCI are discharged from hospital without ever being transferred to an SIU. Primary research involving audit of selected hospital records should be commissioned and published. The search strategy did not identify any full economic evaluations. Future research should include full economic evaluations, possibly alongside a large RCT, which fully consider the costs and consequences of implementing interventions.