Analysis of the safety and efficacy of diabetic ketoacidosis management in a Community General Hospital, 2001-2010: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The recommended place for treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis in children is a paediatric High Dependency Unit. This facility is not available in all areas where children with type 1 diabetes mellitus are cared for. AIMS: This study investigates the safety and efficacy of diabetic ketoacidosis management in a community general hospital without a paediatric high dependency unit. METHODS: Data from children with diabetic ketoacidosis were collected from all diabetes related admissions in Dr Gray's Hospital, Elgin from 2001 to 2010. Observations were compared with safety indicators (pH, bicarbonate, glucose, electrolytes and cerebral oedema) and were reviewed for the recovery to normal values (pH, bicarbonate), without abnormal fluctuation (electrolytes, glucose) and without neurological complications (cerebral oedema). RESULTS: The 114 patients generated 251 diabetes-related admissions, 118 for diabetic ketoacidosis treatment of whom 99 patients were treated with intravenous fluids and insulin. The mean time to recover to a pH of at least 7.30 was 655 minutes (120-1410 min). There were 79 (4.37% of 1808) glucose readings dropping more than 5.0 mmol/l per hour. There were six hypoglycaemic events (2.3-2.9 mmol/l) and in one case potassium dropped to 2.2 mmol/l. There was no case which developed into cerebral oedema. CONCLUSION: Treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis in a community general hospital managed with a protocol for fluids, insulin and strict monitoring has shown to be effective in achieving recovery and to safely avoid complications.

Faecal calprotectin testing for differentiating amongst inflammatory and non-inflammatory bowel diseases: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is common, and causes pain, bloating and diarrhoea and/or constipation. It is a troublesome condition that reduces the quality of life but causes no permanent damage. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comprises mainly ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Both cause serious complications and may lead to sections of the bowel having to be removed, although this is more common with CD. The presenting symptoms of IBS and IBD can be similar. Distinguishing them on clinical signs and symptoms can be difficult. Until recently, colonoscopy was often required to rule out IBD. In younger people, > 60% of colonoscopies showed no abnormality. Faecal calprotectin (FC) is a protein released by the white blood cells, neutrophils, found in inflamed areas of the bowel in IBD. Determining the level of FC in stool samples may help distinguish IBS from IBD. OBJECTIVE: To review the value of FC for distinguishing between IBD and non-IBD. DATA SOURCES: Sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, websites of journals and the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (conference abstracts 2012 and 2013), and contact with experts. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and economic modelling. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.2 (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for most analysis, with statistical analyses done in Stata version 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Forest plots and receiver operating characteristic curves were produced. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used for quality assessment. Economic modelling was done in Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). LIMITATIONS: Studies were often small, most used only one calprotectin cut-off level, and nearly all came from secondary care populations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies provided data for 2 × 2 tables and were included in meta-analyses, with seven in the most important comparison in adults (IBS vs. IBD) and eight in the key comparison in paediatrics (IBD vs. non-IBD). Most studies used laboratory enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests. For distinguishing between IBD and IBS in adults, these gave pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 94% at FC cut-off level of 50 µg/g. Sensitivities at that cut-off ranged from 83% to 100%, and specificities from 60% to 100%. For distinguishing between IBD and non-IBD in paediatric populations with ELISA tests, sensitivities ranged from 95% to 100% at cut-off of 50 µg/g and specificities of 44-93%. Few studies used point-of-care testing but that seemed as reliable as ELISA, though perhaps less specific. The evidence did not provide any grounds for preferring one test over others on clinical effectiveness grounds. FC testing in primary care could reduce the need for referral and colonoscopies. Any quality-adjusted life-year gains are likely to be small because of the low prevalence of IBD and the high sensitivities of all of the tests, resulting in few false negatives with IBD. However, considerable savings could accrue. Areas of uncertainty include the optimum management of people with borderline results (50-150 µg/g), most of whom do not have IBD. Repeat testing may be appropriate before referral. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal calprotectin can be a highly sensitive way of detecting IBD, although there are inevitably trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity, with some false positives (IBS with positive calprotectin) if a low calprotectin cut-off is used. In most cases, a negative calprotectin rules out IBD, thereby sparing most people with IBS from having to have invasive investigations, such as colonoscopy. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42012003287. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab offers an alternative, or additional, treatment for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of denosumab, within its licensed indication, for the prevention of SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched were MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), The Cochrane Library (all sections; Issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011). REVIEW METHODS: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates (BPs) or best supportive care (BSC) in patients with bone metastases were included. Systematic reviews and observational studies were used for safety and quality-of-life assessments. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Studies suitable for meta-analysis were synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). A systematic review was conducted for cost, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness studies. The results of this informed the cost-utility modelling. This principally estimated the cost-effectiveness of denosumab relative to zoledronic acid for when BPs are currently recommended and relative to BSC when BPs are not recommended or are contraindicated. RESULTS: A literature search identified 39 studies (eight suitable for NMA). Denosumab was effective in delaying time to first SRE and reducing the risk of multiple SREs compared with zoledronic acid. Generally speaking, denosumab was similar to zoledronic acid for quality of life, pain, overall survival and safety. The NMA demonstrated that denosumab was more effective in delaying SREs than placebo, but was limited by numerous uncertainties. Cost-utility modelling results for denosumab relative to zoledronic acid were driven by the availability of the patient access scheme (PAS) for denosumab. Without this, denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid. With it, the cost-effectiveness ranged between dominance for breast and prostate cancer, to between £5400 and £15,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for other solid tumours (OSTs) including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and £12,700 per QALY for NSCLC. Owing to small patient gains estimated, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab was very sensitive to the zoledronic acid price. Denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective compared with BSC. LIMITATIONS: Only subgroup data were available for denosumab for NSCLC, and OSTs excluding NSCLC. The NMA was subject to numerous uncertainties. Owing to small patient gains estimated, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab was very sensitive to the zoledronic acid price. CONCLUSION: Denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid and placebo, is effective in delaying SREs, but is similar with regard to quality of life and pain. Cost-effectiveness showed that without the PAS denosumab was not estimated to be cost-effective relative to either zoledronic acid or BSC. With the PAS, denosumab was estimated to be cost-effective relative to zoledronic acid but not BSC. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42011001418. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the risk of diabetes in people with impaired glucose regulation: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing in the UK and worldwide. Before the onset of T2DM, there are two conditions characterised by blood glucose levels that are above normal but below the threshold for diabetes. If screening for T2DM in introduced, many people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) will be found and it is necessary to consider how they should be treated. The number would depend on what screening test was used and what cut-offs were chosen. OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions, including diet and physical activity, for the prevention of T2DM in people with intermediate hyperglycaemia. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, MEDLINE (1996-2011), EMBASE (1980-2011) and all sections of The Cochrane Library, were searched for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and other relevant literature on the effectiveness of diet and/or physical activity in preventing, or delaying, progression to T2DM.The databases were also searched for studies on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. REVIEW METHODS: The review of clinical effectiveness was based mainly on RCTs, which were critically appraised. Subjects were people with intermediate hyperglycaemia, mainly with IGT. Interventions could be diet alone, physical activity alone, or the combination. For cost-effectiveness analysis, we updated the Sheffield economic model of T2DM. Modelling based on RCTs may not reflect what happens in routine care so we created a 'real-life' modelling scenario wherein people would try lifestyle change but switch to metformin after 1 year if they failed. RESULTS: Nine RCTs compared lifestyle interventions (predominantly dietary and physical activity advice, with regular reinforcement and frequent follow-up) with standard care. The primary outcome was progression to diabetes. In most trials, progression was reduced, by over half in some trials. The best effects were seen in participants who adhered best to the lifestyle changes; a scenario of a trial of lifestyle change but a switch to metformin after 1 year in those who did not adhere sufficiently appeared to be the most cost-effective option. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the RCTs were volunteers and their results may have been better than in general populations. Even among the volunteers, many did not adhere. Some studies were not long enough to show whether the interventions reduced cardiovascular mortality as well as diabetes. The main problem is that we know what people should do to reduce progression, but not how to persuade most to do it. CONCLUSION: In people with IGT, dietary change to ensure weight loss, coupled with physical activity, is clinically effective and cost-effective in reducing progression to diabetes. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Screening for cystic fibrosis-related diabetes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited disease that leads to damage to lungs, pancreas and other organs. Most people with CF die prematurely from lung disease, but survival has improved markedly over the decades and it is estimated that children born with CF now will live to an average age of 50 years. CF-related diabetes (CFRD) is due to damage to the pancreas, which, over time, loses its capacity to produce sufficient insulin. CFRD is becoming more common owing to the improved survival of people with CF. OBJECTIVES: The initial aim was to review the methods for screening for CFRD, which can be symptomless but still be causing harm. As the aim of screening and early detection is to allow earlier treatment, a second aim was to assess the effectiveness of treatments. However, during the review it became clear that there were problems with how CFRD is defined, uncertainty about when hyperglycaemia should be treated. DATA SOURCES: Details of relevant studies were obtained from the usual bibliometric databases - MEDLINE (1950-2008), EMBASE (1980-2008), The Cochrane Library (all sections), Web of Science (1970-2008). Websites of relevant bodies were searched for guidelines and reports. Conference abstracts were searched. Expert co-authors identified key papers. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of treatments and screening tests. Screening studies were data extracted if they provided sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 tables. Other screening studies were described in narrative manner. The background to CF and CFRD were described in a narrative manner, as was Chapter 2 on problems with defining CFRD. A model was constructed for cost-effectiveness analysis, but was not used because of lack of data. RESULTS: Diabetes is usually defined based on the level of blood glucose (BG) at which the risk of retinopathy occurs. For CFRD, it would be better to define it on the level at which the risk of lung disease (pulmonopathy) rises. There seems little place for treatments other than insulin, but the best insulin regimen remains to be confirmed. The best screening test may be by continuous glucose monitoring systems but further evidence is required. Screening may need to detect BG levels of > 8 mmol/l because that may be the level above which pulmonopathy starts in people with CF. LIMITATIONS: The evidence base for treatment is disappointing with few large randomised controlled trials. The key question is when treatment should start, perhaps at the post-prandial hyperglycaemia stage. Research is needed. Until that is done, we cannot be sure what we are screening for, and, therefore, which screening strategy should be used. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of CFRD should probably be based on pulmonopathy risk, rather than using the classical definition of diabetes. That implies that we should be screening for a wider range of hyperglycaemia than in other forms of diabetes, perhaps to detect BG excursions of > 8 mmol/l. Insulin treatment may need to start at lower levels than formerly accepted. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. Denosumab has been shown in a large randomised trial to reduce the frequency of osteoporotic fractures when given subcutaneously at 6-monthly intervals. Compared with placebo, the relative risks of clinical vertebral and hip fractures were 0.32 and 0.60, respectively. Clinical vertebral fractures occurred in 0.8% of women taking denosumab and 2.6% of control subjects. Hip fractures occurred in 1.2% of women on placebo and 0.7% on denosumab. The expected use is in women who cannot tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Other options in that situation include strontium ranelate and zoledronate, which, compared with placebo, also reduced the risk of clinical vertebral fractures [relative risk (RR) 0.65 and 0.23, respectively]. Zoledronate also significantly reduced the risk of hip fractures (RR 0.59). The ERG concluded that zoledronate was the main comparator. The relative cost-effectiveness of denosumab and zoledronate depends mainly on assumptions about costs of administration.

Liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The manufacturer proposed the use of liraglutide as a second or third drug in patients with type 2 diabetes whose glycaemic control was unsatisfactory with metformin, with or without a second oral glucose-lowering drug. The submission included six manufacturer-sponsored trials that compared the efficacy of liraglutide against other glucose-lowering agents. Not all of the trials were relevant to the decision problem. The most relevant were Liraglutide Effects and Actions in Diabetes 5 (LEAD-5) (liraglutide used as part of triple therapy and compared against insulin glargine) and LEAD-6 [liraglutide in triple therapy compared against another glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, exenatide]. Five of the six trials were published in full and one was then unpublished. Two doses of liraglutide, 1.2 and 1.8 mg, were used in some trials, but in the two comparisons in triple therapy, against glargine and exenatide, only the 1.8-mg dose was used. Liraglutide in both doses was found to be clinically effective in lowering blood glucose concentration [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)], reducing weight (unlike other glucose-lowering agents, such as sulphonylureas, glitazones and insulins, which cause weight gain) and also reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP). Hypoglycaemia was uncommon. The ERG carried out meta-analyses comparing the 1.2- and 1.8-mg doses of liraglutide, which suggested that there was no difference in control of diabetes, and only a slight difference in weight loss, insufficient to justify the extra cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using the Center for Outcomes Research model. The health benefit was reported as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The manufacturer estimated the cost-effectiveness to be £ 15,130 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with glargine, £ 10,054 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide, £ 10,465 per QALY for liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with sitagliptin, and £ 9851 per QALY for liraglutide 1.2 mg compared with sitagliptin. The ERG conducted additional sensitivity analyses and concluded that the factors that carried most weight were: in the comparison with glargine, the direct utility effects of body mass index (BMI) changes and SBP, with some additional contribution from HbA1c, in the comparison with exenatide, HbA1c, with some additional effects from cholesterol and triglycerides in the comparison with sitagliptin, HbA1c and direct utility effects of BMI changes. The European Medicines Agency has approved liraglutide in dual therapy with other oral glucose-lowering agents. NICE guidance recommends the use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in triple therapy when glycaemic control remains or becomes inadequate with a combination of two oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.2 mg in a dual therapy is indicated only in patients who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, three oral glucose-lowering drugs. The use of liraglutide 1.8 mg was not approved by NICE. The ERG recommends research into the (currently unlicensed) use of liraglutide in combination with long-acting insulin.

Screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy: a rapid update for the National Screening Committee.

BACKGROUND: Screening for gestational diabetes has long been a controversial topic. A previous Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report reviewed literature on screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and assessed the case for screening against the criteria set by the National Screening Committee. OBJECTIVE: To update a previous HTA report which reviewed the literature on screening for GDM by examining evidence that has emerged since that last report, including the Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS), the Maternal and Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMUN) trial and the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study. To review data on recent trends in maternal age at birth and on the prevalence of overweight and obesity and the effect on prevalence of GDM. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out. The bibliographic databases used were MEDLINE (1996 to January 2009), EMBASE (1996 to December 2009), the Cochrane Library 2008 issue 4, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and the Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: For the review of treatment with oral drugs versus insulin, a full systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. The results of the ACHOIS, MFMUN and HAPO studies were summarised and their implications discussed. Findings of a selection of other recent studies, relevant to the continuum issue, were summarised. Some recent screening studies were reviewed, including a particular focus on studies of screening earlier in pregnancy. RESULTS: The HAPO results showed a linear relationship between plasma glucose and adverse outcomes - there is a continuum of risk with no clear threshold which could divide women into those with gestational diabetes and those without. There was good evidence from trials and the meta-analysis that women who fail to control hyperglycaemic in pregnancy on lifestyle measures alone can be safely and effectively be treated with oral agents, metformin or glibenclamide, rather than going directly to insulin. Evidence showed few differences in results between glibenclamide and insulin and metformin and insulin. The exceptions were that there was less maternal hypoglycaemia with glibenclamide, but less neonatal hypoglycaemia and lower birthweight with insulin, and there was less maternal weight gain with metformin. The ACHOIS and MFMUN trials showed reductions in perinatal complications among infants born to mothers who were provided with more intensive dietary advice, blood glucose monitoring and insulin when required. The HAPO study demonstrated adverse outcomes over a much wider range of blood glucose (BG) than the traditional definition of GDM. In the HAPO study, no one measure of BG came out as being clearly the best, although fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was as good as any, and had advantages of being more convenient than an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but correlations between fasting and post-load levels were quite poor. Two screening strategies dominated; (1) selection by the American Diabetes Association criteria followed by the 75-g OGTT [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) 3678 pounds], and (2) selection by high-risk ethnicity followed by the 75-g OGTT (ICER 21,739 pounds). Studies indicated that costs are about 1833 pounds higher for pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes, suggesting that prevention would be worthwhile. LIMITATIONS: Not all of the HAPO results have been published, and none of the reviewed economic studies resolved the most difficult issue - at what level of BG does intervention become cost-effective? CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base has improved since the last HTA review in 2002. There is now good evidence for treatment of oral drugs instead of insulin and it looks increasingly as if FPG could be the test of choice. However some key uncertainties remain to be resolved, which can be done by further analysis of the already collected HAPO data and by using the UK model used in developing the NICE guidelines to assess the cost-effectiveness of intervention in each of the seven HAPO categories.

Newer agents for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In May 2008, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued an updated guideline [clinical guideline (CG) 66] for the management of all aspects of type 2 diabetes. This report aims to provide information on new drug developments to support a 'new drugs update' to the 2008 guideline. OBJECTIVE: To review the newer agents available for blood glucose control in type 2 diabetes from four classes: the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue exenatide; dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors sitagliptin and vildagliptin; the long-acting insulin analogues, glargine and detemir; and to review concerns about the safety of the thiazolidinediones. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1990-April 2008), EMBASE (1990-April 2008), the Cochrane Library (all sections) Issue 2, 2008, and the Science Citation Index and ISI Proceedings (2000-April 2008). The websites of the American Diabetes Association, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency were searched, as were manufacturers' websites. REVIEW METHODS: Data extraction was carried out by one person, and checked by a second. Studies were assessed for quality using standard methods for reviews of trials. Meta-analyses were carried out using the Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan) software. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on current standard clinical practice in the UK, as outlined in NICE CG 66. The outcomes for the GLP-1 analogues, DPP-4 inhibitors and the long-acting insulin analogues were: glycaemic control, reflected by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, hypoglycaemic episodes, changes in weight, adverse events, quality of life and costs. Modelling of the cost-effectiveness of the various regimes used the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model. RESULTS: Exenatide improved glycaemic control by around 1%, and had the added benefit of weight loss. The gliptins were effective in improving glycaemic control, reducing HbA1c level by about 0.8%. Glargine and detemir were equivalent to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) (and to each other) in terms of glycaemic control but had modest advantages in terms of hypoglycaemia, especially nocturnal. Detemir, used only once daily, appeared to cause slightly less weight gain than glargine. The glitazones appeared to have similar effectiveness in controlling hyperglycaemia. Both can cause heart failure and fractures, but rosiglitazone appears to slightly increase the risk of cardiovascular events whereas pioglitazone reduces it. Eight trials examined the benefits of adding pioglitazone to an insulin regimen; in our meta-analysis, the mean reduction in HbA1c level was 0.54% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.38] and hypoglycaemia was marginally more frequent in the pioglitazone arms [relative risk (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63]. In most studies, those on pioglitazone gained more weight than those who were not. In terms of annual drug acquisition costs among the non-insulin regimes for a representative patient with a body mass index of around 30 kg/m2, the gliptins were the cheapest of the new drugs, with costs of between 386 pounds and 460 pounds. The glitazone costs were similar, with total annual costs for pioglitazone and for rosiglitazone of around 437 pounds and 482 pounds, respectively. Exenatide was more expensive, with an annual cost of around 830 pounds. Regimens containing insulin fell between the gliptins and exenatide in terms of their direct costs, with a NPH-based regimen having an annual cost of around 468 pounds for the representative patient, whereas the glargine and detemir regimens were more expensive, at around 634 pounds and 716 pounds, respectively. Comparisons of sitagliptin and rosiglitazone, and of vidagliptin and pioglitazone slowed clinical equivalence in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), but the gliptins were marginally less costly. Exenatide, when compared with glargine, appeared to be cost-effective. Comparing glargine with NPH showed an additional anticipated cost of around 1800 pounds. Within the comparison of detemir and NPH, the overall treatment costs for detemir were slightly higher, at between 2700 pounds and 2600 pounds. LIMITATIONS: The UKPDS Outcomes Model does not directly address aspects of the treatments under consideration, for example the direct utility effects from weight loss or weight gain, severe hypoglycaemic events and the fear of severe hypoglycaemic events. Also, small differences in QALYs among the drugs lead to fluctuations in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide, the gliptins and detemir were all clinically effective. The long-acting insulin analogues glargine and detemir appeared to have only slight clinical advantages over NPH, but had much higher costs and did not appear to be cost-effective as first-line insulins for type 2 diabetes. Neither did exenatide appear to be cost-effective compared with NPH but, when used as third drug after failure of dual oral combination therapy, exenatide appeared cost-effective relative to glargine in this analysis. The gliptins are similar to the glitazones in glycaemic control and costs, and appeared to have fewer long-term side effects. Therefore, it appears, as supported by recent NICE guidelines, that NPH should be the preferred first-line insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. More economic analysis is required to establish when it becomes cost-effective to switch from NPH to a long-acting analogue. Also, long-term follow-up studies of exenatide and the gliptins, and data on combined insulin and exenatide treatment, would be useful.

Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether or not self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is worthwhile, in terms of glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia, quality of life (QoL) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who were not treated with insulin or who were on basal insulin in combination with oral agents. DATA SOURCES: Literature searched included systematic reviews published since 1996, and a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified from the reviews, and from searches for more recent trials, along with review of qualitative and economic studies. Search strategies were limited to the English language and to articles published since 1996, and included: databases searched from 1996 to April 2009 - The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science - limited to meeting abstracts; and websites. REVIEW METHODS: The intervention was self-testing of blood glucose with a meter and test strips. Studies included adult patients with T2DM on any oral treatment or combination of regimens, including lifestyle, oral agents or once-daily basal insulin. Existing systematic reviews of SMBG were summarised and results compared. Evidence synthesis of all of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria was carried out using a narrative review. Data were analysed by outcome and subgroups. HbA1c data from RCTs were summarised using a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using the chi-squared and I2 methods. The following analyses were carried out: SMBG compared to self-monitoring of urine glucose, SMBG versus no SMBG, more intensive SMBG versus less intensive SMBG, and more intensive SMBG versus no SMBG. Available qualitative data gained from in-depth interview studies, repeated interviews, and questionnaire and survey data were summarised. RESULTS: The review identified 30 RCTs, although few were of high quality. Ten trials comparing SMBG with no SMBG showed statistically significant reduction in HbA1C of 0.21%, which may not be considered clinically significant. A similar, though not statistically significant difference, was shown where SMBG with education was compared to SMBG without education or feedback. RCTs showed no consistent effect on hypoglycaemic episodes and no impact on medication changes. Review of cost-effectiveness studies showed that costs of SMBG per annum vary considerably (10-259 pounds). Although some studies assert that SMBG may lead to savings in health-care costs which may offset the costs of testing, the best analysis to date (DiGEM - Diabetes Glycaemic Education and Monitoring) concluded that SMBG was not cost-effective. Qualitative studies revealed that there was a lack of education in how to interpret and use the data from SMBG, and that failure to act on the results was common. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggested that SMBG is of limited clinical effectiveness in improving glycaemic control in people with T2DM on oral agents, or diet alone, and is therefore unlikely to be cost-effective. SMBG may lead to improved glycaemic control only in the context of appropriate education - both for patients and health-care professionals - on how to respond to the data, in terms of lifestyle and treatment adjustment. Also, SMBG may be more effective if patients are able to self-adjust drug treatment. Further research is required on the type of education and feedback that are most helpful, characteristics of patients benefiting most from SMBG, optimal timing and frequency of SMBG, and the circumstances under which SMBG causes anxiety and/or depression.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was reviewing its previous guidance on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The review provided an assessment of evidence which had been published since the previous NICE appraisal (TA 151) in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using CSII to treat diabetes. To update the previous assessment report by reviewing evidence that has emerged since the last appraisal, and to take account of developments in alternative therapies, in particular the long-acting analogue insulins, which cause fewer problems with hypoglycaemia. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were carried out. The bibliographic databases used were MEDLINE and EMBASE, 2002 to June 2007. The Cochrane Library (all sections), the Science Citation Index (for meeting abstracts only) and the website of the 2007 American Diabetes Association were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: The primary focus for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) was the comparison of CSII with multiple daily injection (MDI), based on the newer insulin analogues, but trials of neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-based MDI that had been published since the last assessment were identified and described in brief. For type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), all trials of MDI versus CSII were included, whether the long-acting insulin was analogue or not, because there was no evidence that analogue-based MDI was better than NPH-based MDI. Trials that were shorter than 12 weeks were excluded. Information on the patients' perspectives was obtained from four sources: the submission from the pump users group--Insulin Pump Therapy (INPUT); interviews with parents of young children who were members of INPUT; some recent studies; and from a summary of findings from the previous assessment report. Economic modelling used the Center for Outcomes Research (CORE) model, through an arrangement with the NICE and the pump manufacturers, whose submission also used the CORE model. RESULTS: The 74 studies used for analysis included eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CSII versus analogue-based MDI in either T1DM or T2DM, eight new (since the last NICE appraisal) RCTs of CSII versus NPH-based MDI in T1DM, 48 observational studies of CSII, six studies of CSII in pregnancy, and four systematic reviews. The following benefits of CSII were highlighted: better control of blood glucose levels, as reflected by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, with the size of improvement depending on the level before starting CSII; reduction in swings in blood glucose levels, and in problems due to the dawn phenomenon; fewer problems with hypoglycaemic episodes; reduction in insulin dose per day, thereby partly off-setting the cost of CSII; improved quality of life, including a reduction in the chronic fear of severe hypoglycaemia; more flexibility of lifestyle--no need to eat at fixed intervals, more freedom of lifestyle and easier participation in social and physical activity; and benefits for the patients' family. The submission from INPUT emphasised the quality of life gains from CSII, as well as improved control and fewer hypoglycaemic episodes. Also, there was a marked discrepancy between the improvement in social quality of life reported by successful pump users, and the lack of convincing health-related quality of life gains reported in the trials. With regard to economic evaluation, the main cost of CSII is for consumables, such as tubing and cannulas, and is about 1800-2000 pounds per year. The cost of the pump, assuming 4-year life, adds another 430-720 pounds per annum. The extra cost compared with analogue-based MDI averages 1700 pounds. Most studies, assuming a reduction in HbA1c level of 1.2%, found CSII to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The most important weakness of the evidence was the very small number of randomised trials of CSII against the most modern forms of MDI, using analogue insulins. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the totality of evidence, using observational studies to supplement the limited data from randomised trials against best MDI, CSII provides some advantages over MDI in T1DM for both children and adults. However, there was no evidence that CSII is better than analogue-based MDI in T2DM or in pregnancy. Further trials with larger numbers and longer durations comparing CSII and optimised MDI in adults, adolescents and children are needed. In addition, there should be a trial of CSII versus MDI with similar provision of structured education in both arms. A trial is also needed for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, to investigate using CSII to the best effect.

The use of metformin in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of efficacy.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: As adding metformin to insulin therapy has been advocated in type 1 diabetes, we conducted a systematic review of published clinical trials and clinical trial databases to assess the effects on HbA(1c), weight, insulin-dose requirement and adverse effects. METHODS: We constructed evidence tables and fitted a fixed-effects model (inverse variance method) in order to assess heterogeneity between studies and give a crude measure of each overall treatment effect. RESULTS: Of 197 studies identified, nine involved randomisation with informed consent of patients with type 1 diabetes to metformin (vs placebo or comparator) in either a parallel or crossover design for at least 1 week. We noted marked heterogeneity in study design, drug dose, age of participants and length of follow-up. Metformin was associated with reductions in: (1) insulin-dose requirement (5.7-10.1 U/day in six of seven studies); (2) HbA(1c) (0.6-0.9% in four of seven studies); (3) weight (1.7-6.0 kg in three of six studies); and (4) total cholesterol (0.3-0.41 mmol/l in three of seven studies). Metformin was well tolerated, albeit with a trend towards increased hypoglycaemia. Formal estimates of combined effects from the five trials which reported appropriate data indicated a significant reduction in insulin dose (6.6 U/day, p < 0.001) but no significant reduction in HbA(1c) (absolute reduction 0.11%, p = 0.42). No reported trials included cardiovascular outcomes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Metformin reduces insulin-dose requirement in type 1 diabetes but it is unclear whether this is sustained beyond 1 year and whether there are benefits for cardiovascular and other key clinical outcomes.

The clinical effectiveness of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in slowing or arresting progression of osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate/hydrochloride and chondroitin sulphate in modifying the progression of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from 1950 to 2008 and included: MEDLINE and PubMed; EMBASE; Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, CENTRAL, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases); Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED); National Research Register (NRR); Web of Science Proceedings; Current Controlled Trials; and Clinical Trials.gov. Other sources included bibliographies of retrieved papers, registered but unpublished trials, internet searches and the Food Standards Agency website. REVIEW METHODS: A search was conducted for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which were used to identify RCTs of at least 12 months' duration and updated with searches for primary studies. A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using cohort simulation and drawing on available evidence. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken and value of information analysis conducted. A review of studies of mechanism of action was carried out to explore the biological plausibility of the preparations. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews and one clinical guideline met the inclusion criteria. They reported inconsistent conclusions with only modest effects on reported pain and function. A reduction in joint space narrowing was more consistently observed, but the effect size was small and the clinical significance uncertain. A separate review of eight primary trials of > 12 months' duration showed evidence of statistically significant improvements in joint space loss, pain and function for glucosamine sulphate, but the clinical importance of these differences was not clear. In two studies of glucosamine sulphate, the need for knee arthroplasty was reduced from 14.5% to 6.3% at 8 years' follow-up. For other preparations of glucosamine, chondroitin and combination therapy, there was less evidence to support a clinical effect. Cost-effectiveness modelling was restricted to glucosamine sulphate. Over a lifetime horizon the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain for adding glucosamine sulphate to current care was estimated to be 21,335 pounds. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine sulphate therapy was particularly dependent on the magnitude of the quality of life (QoL) gain, the change in knee arthroplasty probability with therapy and the discount rate. At a cost per QALY gained threshold of 20,000 pounds, the likelihood that glucosamine sulphate is more cost-effective than current care is 0.43, while at a threshold of 30,000 pounds, the probability rises to 0.73. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that estimates were imprecise and subject to a degree of decision uncertainty. Value of information analysis demonstrated the need for further research. Several biologically plausible mechanisms of action for glucosamine sulphate and chondroitin were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence that glucosamine sulphate shows some clinical effectiveness in the treatment of OA of the knee. No trial data came from the UK and caution should be exercised in generalising the findings to the UK health-care setting. Cost-effectiveness was not conclusively demonstrated. There was evidence to support the potential clinical impact of glucosamine sulphate. The value of information analysis identified three research priorities: QoL, structural outcomes and knee arthroplasty. The biological mechanism of glucosamine sulphate and chondroitin remains uncertain and, in particular, the proposal that the active substance may be sulphate should be explored further.

Dehydroepiandrosterone for systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic inflammatory, multisystem autoimmune condition. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is a naturally occurring inactive steroid which may possess disease activity modifying properties as well as the ability to reduce flares and steroid requirements. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of dehydroepiandrosterone compared to placebo in the treatment of people with systemic lupus erythematosus. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE, Pub Med, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and ISI Proceedings as well as searching web sites of Genelabs, FDA and EMEA. (Searches undertaken in June 2006 unless otherwise specified). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of at least three months duration comparing DHEA to a placebo in people with SLE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: From the seven RCTs identified (842 participants) to date there is 'gold' ranking evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) that DHEA: had little clinical effect on disease activity in those with mild/moderate disease (measured by SLEDAI or SLAM) but one study demonstrated evidence of stabilisation or improvement in 8.3% more patients than those treated with placebo; had a modest but clinically significant improvement in health related quality of life measured by Patient Global Assessment, estimated as 11.5% (11.5 mm on a 100 mm scale) by meta-analysis; resulted in a greater number of patients experiencing adverse events, particularly androgenic effects such as acne where patients risk was doubled when compared to placebo (RR 2.2; 95% CI 1.65 to 2.83) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studying effectiveness of DHEA for SLE is difficult, reflecting the problems of studying any treatment for a disease as complex as SLE. From the seven RCTs to date, there was evidence that DHEA had a modest but clinically significant impact on health related quality of life in the short term. Impact on disease activity was inconsistent, with DHEA showing no benefit over placebo in terms of change in SLEDAI in all but one of the 6 studies reporting this outcome. Long term outcomes and safety remain unstudied.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new technology, the inhaled insulin, Exubera (Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis, in collaboration with Nektar Therapeutics), a short-acting insulin. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to November 2005. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted and economic modelling carried out. An industry model was used for modelling. RESULTS: Nine trials of inhaled insulins were found, but only seven used the Exubera form of inhaled insulin. The other two used inhaled insulins that have not yet been licensed. There were five trials in type 1 and two in type 2 diabetes. Inhaled insulin is clinically effective, and is as good as short-acting soluble insulin in controlling blood glucose, plus it works slightly more quickly. None of the published trials compared it with short-acting analogues. Most patients in the trials were on combinations of short-acting, and either long- or intermediate-acting insulin, and both were changed, making it more difficult to assess the effects of only the change from soluble to inhaled insulin. Patient preference was the only significant difference between inhaled and soluble insulin in the trials. Most patients preferred inhaled to injected short-acting insulin, and this has some effect on quality of life measures. However, the control groups mostly used syringes and needles, rather than pens. As pens are more convenient, their use might have narrowed the patient satisfaction difference. There were no trials of inhaled insulin against continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). No serious adverse experiences of inhaled insulin in the lung have been seen to date, but it is too soon yet to judge long-term effects. The manufacturer's model appears to be a high-quality one, although the results depend more on the assumptions fed into the model than on the model itself. The key assumptions are the size of the gain in quality of life utility from inhaling rather than injecting insulin, the effect of having an inhaled option on the willingness to start insulin among people with poor diabetic control on oral drugs, and the effect on glycaemic control. We consider that these assumptions make the cost-effectiveness appear better than it really would be. The manufacturer's submission assumed utility gains of 0.036-0.075 in patients with type 1 diabetes, and 0.027-0.067 in those with type 2, based on an unpublished utility elicitation study sponsored by the manufacturer. We thought that these gains were optimistic and that gains of 0.02 or less were more likely, on average. However, patients with particular problems with injection sites might have more to gain, although they might also be a group with much to gain from CSII. A key factor is the cost of inhaled insulin. Much more insulin has to be given by inhaler than by injection, and so the cost of inhaled insulin is much higher than injected. The extra cost depends on dosage but ranges from around 600 pounds to over 1000 pounds per patient per year. CONCLUSIONS: The inhaled insulin, Exubera, appears to be as effective, but no better than injected short-acting insulin. The additional cost is so much more that it is unlikely to be cost-effective. The long-term safety is uncertain. Additional research is recommended into the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin.

Meglitinide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: In type 2 diabetes mellitus, impairment of insulin secretion is an important component of the disease. Meglitinide analogues are a class of oral hypoglycaemic agents that increase insulin secretion, in particular, during the early phase of insulin release. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the effects of meglitinide analogues in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched several databases including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also contacted manufacturers and searched ongoing trials databases, and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) websites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled, parallel or cross-over trials comparing at least 10 weeks of treatment with meglitinide analogues to placebo, head-to-head, metformin or in combination with insulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials involving 3781 participants were included. No studies reported the effect of meglitinides on mortality or morbidity. In the eleven studies comparing meglitinides to placebo, both repaglinide and nateglinide resulted in a reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin (0.1% to 2.1% reduction in HbA1c for repaglinide; 0.2% to 0.6% for nateglinide). Only two trials compared repaglinide to nateglinide (342 participants), with greater reduction in glycosylated haemoglobin in those receiving repaglinide. Repaglinide (248 participants in three trials) had a similar degree of effect in reducing glycosylated haemoglobin as metformin. Nateglinide had a similar or slightly less marked effect on glycosylated haemoglobin than metformin (one study, 355 participants). Weight gain was generally greater in those treated with meglitinides compared with metformin (up to three kg in three months). Diarrhoea occurred less frequently and hypoglycaemia occurred more frequently but rarely severely enough as to require assistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Meglitinides may offer an alternative oral hypoglycaemic agent of similar potency to metformin, and may be indicated where side effects of metformin are intolerable or where metformin is contraindicated. However, there is no evidence available to indicate what effect meglitinides will have on important long-term outcomes, particularly mortality.

Making literature searches easier: a rapid and sensitive search filter for retrieving randomized controlled trials from PubMed.

AIMS: To develop and test the sensitivity and precision of a rapid and simple search filter (RSSF), suitable for busy clinicians wanting to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed. Ideally it should retrieve all the RCTs, but as few irrelevant studies as possible, and be easy to use. METHODS: The RSSF consisted of the search term 'Randomized Controlled Trial' limited to the Publication Type field. Journals that published the highest numbers of diabetes RCTs between 2000 and 2005 were identified, and then handsearched in order define a set of known RCTs. The sensitivity of the RSSF was tested by measuring the proportion of the known RCTs retrieved, and the precision by checking the proportion of the retrieved studies which were RCTs. The RSSF was compared to a highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS) developed for PubMed. Embase was checked for trials not in PubMed. RESULTS: Sixteen journals were found to contain half of all published RCTs in diabetes. 820 diabetes RCTs were identified by handsearching. Measured against these, the RSSF gave a sensitivity of 96.0% (95% CI, 94.8% to 97.1%), and a precision of 93.6% (95% CI 91.7% to 95.0%). Compared to the HSSS, the RSSF reduced the filtering required by 87%. An Embase search for diabetes RCTs found 36 (2.1%) not in PubMed. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid simple search filter for PubMed can find almost all diabetes RCTs, while excluding most studies not required, thereby greatly reducing the time cost of searching and filtering results, and of searching other databases.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation (BTT), as a bridge to myocardial recovery (BTR) or as a long-term chronic support (LTCS) for people with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). DATA SOURCES: For the systematic review, electronic databases and bibliographies of related publications plus experts and manufacturers. For the economic evaluations, data originated from the systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, UK hospitals, device manufacturers and expert opinion. REVIEW METHODS: For the systematic review, studies were selected and assessed against a set of rigorous criteria; data were then synthesised using a narrative approach through subgroup analysis based on the indication for treatment, type of LVAD and quality of studies. The economic evaluation developed two models to evaluate the use of LVADs, first as a BTT and second as LTCS for patients suffering from ESHF. RESULTS: Sixteen studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as a BTT. Despite the poor methodological quality of the evidence, LVADs appeared beneficial compared to other treatment options (i.e. inotropic agents or usual care) or to no care (i.e. the natural history of ESHF) improving the survival of people with ESHF during the period of support and following heart transplantation. Patients supported by an LVAD appeared to have an improved functional status compared with those on usual care and experienced an improvement in their quality of life from before device implantation to the period during support. Serious adverse events are a risk for patients with an LVAD. With a scarcity of evidence directly comparing different devices, it is difficult to identify specific devices as the most clinically effective. The HeartMate LVAD is the only device that has evidence comparing it with the different alternatives, appearing to be more clinically effective than inotropic agents and usual care and as clinically effective as the Novacor device. Second generation devices, such as Jarvik 2000 and MicroMed Debakey LVADs, are early in their development but show considerable promise that should be assessed through long-term studies. Evidence of the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as a BTR was limited to seven non-comparative observational studies that appeared to show that the LVADs were beneficial in providing support until myocardial recovery. It was not possible to assess whether the LVADs are more effective than other alternatives or specific devices. No evidence was found on the quality of life or functional status of patients and limited information on adverse events was reported. Six studies assessed the clinical effectiveness of LVADs as an LTCS and from these it was evident that LVADs provided benefits in terms of improved survival, functional status and quality of life. Nineteen studies assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of LVADS for people with ESHF, with the majority being simple costing studies and very few studies of the cost-effectiveness of LVADs. With no relevant cost-effectiveness studies available, an economic evaluation for BTT and LTCS was developed. The economic evaluation has shown that neither LVAD indication considered, that is, BTT and LTCS, is a cost-effective use. For the HeartMate LVAD used as a BTT the cost per QALY was pound 65,242. In the less restrictive indication, LTCS, where LVADs are not just given to patients awaiting transplantation, the analysis has shown that LTCS is not cost-effective. The baseline cost per QALY of the first-generation HeartMate LVAD was pound 170,616. One- and multi-way sensitivity analysis had limited effect on the cost per QALY. A hypothetical scenario based on the cost of a second-generation MicroMed DeBakey device illustrated that a 60% improvement in survival over first-generation devices was necessary before the incremental cost-effectiveness approached pound 40,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Although the review showed that LVADs are clinically effective as a BTT with ESHF, the economic evaluation indicated that they are not cost-effective. With the limited and declining availability of donor hearts for transplantation, it appears that the future of the technology is in its use as an LTCS. Further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness of LVADs for people with ESHF, assessing patient survival, functional ability, quality of life and adverse events. Evaluations of the clinical effectiveness of LVADs should include economic evaluations, as well as data on quality of life, utilities, resources and costs. A systematic review of the epidemiology of ESHF should be undertaken to assess its potential impact.

Surgery for morbid obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Surgery for morbid obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. A number of procedures are available, but the effects of these surgical procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgery for morbid obesity. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerized searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented with hand searches of selected journals and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of the most recent searches: December 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical procedures, and randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing surgery with non-surgical management for morbid obesity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked independently by two reviewers. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six trials were included. Two randomised controlled trials and three prospective cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical management, and 21 randomised controlled trials compared different surgical procedures. The quality of most of the trials was poor; just three trials had adequate allocation concealment. A meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in the surgical procedures performed, measures of weight change and length of follow-up. Compared with conventional management, surgery resulted in greater weight loss (21 kg weight loss at eight years versus weight gain), with improvements in quality of life and comorbidities. Some complications of surgery occurred, such as wound infection. Gastric bypass was associated with greater weight loss, better quality of life and fewer revisions, reoperations and/or conversions than gastroplasty, but had more side-effects. Greater weight loss and fewer side-effects and reoperations occurred with adjustable gastric banding than vertical banded gastroplasty, but laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty produced more patients with an excellent or good result and fewer late complications than laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Vertical banded gastroplasty was associated with greater weight loss but more vomiting than horizontal gastroplasty. Some postoperative deaths occurred in the studies. Weight loss was similar between open and laparoscopic procedures. Fewer serious complications occurred with laparoscopic surgery, although conversion to open surgery was sometimes required. Most studies found that laparoscopic surgery had a longer operative time. But, it resulted in reduced blood loss and quicker recovery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that surgery is more effective than conventional management for weight loss in morbid obesity. The comparative safety and effectiveness of different surgical procedures is unclear.