Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for stage IA and IB melanoma. REVIEW METHODS: Three systematic reviews were conducted. (1) The effectiveness of surveillance strategies. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. (2) Prediction models to stratify by risk of recurrence, metastases and survival. Model performance was assessed by study-reported measures of discrimination (e.g. D-statistic, Harrel's c-statistic), calibration (e.g. the Hosmer-Lemeshow 'goodness-of-fit' test) or overall performance (e.g. Brier score, R2). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). (3) Diagnostic test accuracy of fine-needle biopsy and ultrasonography. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and overall survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Review data and data from elsewhere were used to model the cost-effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies and the value of further research. RESULTS: (1) The surveillance review included one randomised controlled trial. There was no evidence of a difference in new primary or recurrence detected (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.31). Risk of bias was considered to be of some concern. Certainty of the evidence was low. (2) Eleven risk prediction models were identified. Discrimination measures were reported for six models, with the area under the operating curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. Three models reported calibration measures, with coefficients of ≥ 0.88. Overall performance was reported by two models. In one, the Brier score was slightly better than the American Joint Committee on Cancer scheme score. The other reported an R2 of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.49). All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. (3) The diagnostic test accuracy review identified two studies. One study considered fine-needle biopsy and the other considered ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity for fine-needle biopsy were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97), respectively. For ultrasonography, sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the reference standards and flow and timing domains, the risk of bias was rated as being high for both studies. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, less intensive surveillance than recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be worthwhile. There was considerable uncertainty. Improving the diagnostic performance of cancer nurse specialists and introducing a risk prediction tool could be promising. Further research on transition probabilities between different stages of melanoma and on improving diagnostic accuracy would be of most value. LIMITATIONS: Overall, few data of limited quality were available, and these related to earlier versions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Consequently, there was considerable uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite adoption of rigorous methods, too few data are available to justify changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations on surveillance. However, alternative strategies warrant further research, specifically on improving estimates of incidence, progression of recurrent disease; diagnostic accuracy and health-related quality of life; developing and evaluating risk stratification tools; and understanding patient preferences. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086784. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol 25, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Malignant melanoma is the deadliest of skin cancers; in the UK, > 2500 people die from it every year. Initially, the cancer is removed surgically, which cures it for most people, but, for some, the cancer returns. For this reason, after a melanoma is removed, patients are followed up to see if the melanoma reoccurs or if new melanomas have developed. It is felt that early cancer detection improves the chance of future treatment working. A key question is how best to follow up patients after initial melanoma surgery. This study concentrates on the earliest stage of melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I), which accounts for more than 7 out of 10 of all melanoma diagnoses. The study also investigates if new ways of follow-up could be at least as good as current practice and a better use of NHS money. We systematically reviewed studies comparing different ways of organising follow-up, and then methods to identify those patients at high risk of developing a further melanoma and how good different tests are at detecting this cancer. We then compared different possible follow-up strategies. For each strategy, we considered its impact on quality and length of life, and how well it used NHS resources. We found little evidence to support a change in how follow-up should be organised currently. There were some ways of organising follow-up that might be better than current care, but further research is needed. We found that new research on whether or not follow-up should be performed by a cancer nurse specialist, rather than a dermatologist or surgeon, would be worthwhile. We also found that more research could be worthwhile on how frequently melanoma recurs and spreads, as well as how accurately a diagnosis of further cancer is made and how to identify those most at risk of further melanoma spread.

Ixazomib for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Review from an Evidence Review Group on a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Ixazomib is an oral proteasome inhibitor used in combination with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IXA-LEN-DEX) and licensed for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. As part of a single technology appraisal (ID807) undertaken by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, the Evidence Review Group, Warwick Evidence was invited to independently review the evidence submitted by the manufacturer of ixazomib, Takeda UK Ltd. The main source of clinical effectiveness data about IXA-LEN-DEX came from the Tourmaline-MM1 randomized controlled trial in which 771 patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either IXA-LEN-DEX or placebo-LEN-DEX as their second-, third-, or fourth-line treatment. Takeda estimated the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX using a de-novo partitioned-survival model with three health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead). In their first submission, this model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. bortezomib plus dexamethasone (BORT-DEX) in second-line treatment, and of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX in third-line treatment. To estimate the relative clinical performance of IXA-LEN-DEX vs. BORT-DEX, Takeda conducted network meta-analyses for important outcomes. The network meta-analysis for overall survival was found to be flawed in several respects, but mainly because a hazard ratio input for one of the studies in the network had been inverted, resulting in a large inflation of the claimed superiority of IXA-LEN-DEX over BORT-DEX and a considerable overestimation of its cost effectiveness. In subsequent submissions, Takeda withdrew second-line treatment as an option for IXA-LEN-DEX. The manufacturer's first submission comparing IXA-LEN-DEX with LEN-DEX for third-line therapy employed Tourmaline-MM1 data from third- and fourth-line patients as proxy for a third-line population. The appraisal committee did not consider this reasonable because randomization in Tourmaline-MM1 was stratified according to one previous treatment and two or more previous treatments. A further deficiency was considered to be the manufacturer's use of interim survival data rather than the most mature data available. A second submission from the company focussed on IXA-LEN-DEX vs. LEN-DEX as third- or fourth-line treatment (the two or more previous lines population) and a new patient access scheme was introduced. Covariate modeling of survival outcomes was proposed using the most mature survival data. The Evidence Review Group's main criticisms of the new evidence included: the utility associated with the pre-progression health state was overestimated, treatment costs of ixazomib were underestimated, survival models were still associated with great uncertainty, leading to clinically implausible anomalies and highly variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates, and the company had not explored a strong assumption that the survival benefit of IXA-LEN-DEX over LEN-DEX would be fully maintained for a further 22 years beyond the observed data, which encompassed only approximately 2.5 years of observation. The appraisal committee remained unconvinced that ixazomib represented a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources. Takeda's third submission offered new base-case parametric models for survival outcomes, a new analysis of utilities, and proposed a commercial access agreement. In a brief critique of the third submission, the Evidence Review Group agreed that the selection of appropriate survival models was problematic and at the request of the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence investigated external sources of evidence regarding survival outcomes. The Evidence Review Group considered that some cost and utility estimates in the submission may have remained biased in favor of ixazomib. As a result of their third appraisal meeting, the committee judged that for the two to three prior therapies population, and at the price agreed in a commercial access agreement, ixazomib had the potential to be cost effective. It was referred to the Cancer Drugs Fund so that further data could accrue with the aim of diminishing the clinical uncertainties.

Multiplex tests to identify gastrointestinal bacteria, viruses and parasites in people with suspected infectious gastroenteritis: a systematic review and economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteritis is a common, transient disorder usually caused by infection and characterised by the acute onset of diarrhoea. Multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel (GPP) tests simultaneously identify common bacterial, viral and parasitic pathogens using molecular testing. By providing test results more rapidly than conventional testing methods, GPP tests might positively influence the treatment and management of patients presenting in hospital or in the community. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for GPP tests [xTAG® (Luminex, Toronto, ON, Canada), FilmArray (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA) and Faecal Pathogens B (AusDiagnostics, Beaconsfield, NSW, Australia)] and to develop a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of GPP tests with conventional testing in England and Wales. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database were searched from inception to January 2016 (with supplementary searches of other online resources). REVIEW METHODS: Eligible studies included patients with acute diarrhoea; comparing GPP tests with standard microbiology techniques; and patient, management, test accuracy or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Quality assessment of eligible studies used tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklists. The meta-analysis included positive and negative agreement estimated for each pathogen. A de novo decision tree model compared patients managed with GPP testing or comparable coverage with patients managed using conventional tests, within the Public Health England pathway. Economic models included hospital and community management of patients with suspected gastroenteritis. The model estimated costs (in 2014/15 prices) and quality-adjusted life-year losses from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies informed the review of clinical evidence (17 xTAG, four FilmArray, two xTAG and FilmArray, 0 Faecal Pathogens B). No study provided an adequate reference standard with which to compare the test accuracy of GPP with conventional tests. A meta-analysis (of 10 studies) found considerable heterogeneity; however, GPP testing produces a greater number of pathogen-positive findings than conventional testing. It is unclear whether or not these additional 'positives' are clinically important. The review identified no robust evidence to inform consequent clinical management of patients. There is considerable uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of GPP panels used to test for suspected infectious gastroenteritis in hospital and community settings. Uncertainties in the model include length of stay, assumptions about false-positive findings and the costs of tests. Although there is potential for cost-effectiveness in both settings, key modelling assumptions need to be verified and model findings remain tentative. LIMITATIONS: No test-treat trials were retrieved. The economic model reflects one pattern of care, which will vary across the NHS. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review and cost-effectiveness model identify uncertainties about the adoption of GPP tests within the NHS. GPP testing will generally correctly identify pathogens identified by conventional testing; however, these tests also generate considerable additional positive results of uncertain clinical importance. FUTURE WORK: An independent reference standard may not exist to evaluate alternative approaches to testing. A test-treat trial might ascertain whether or not additional GPP 'positives' are clinically important or result in overdiagnoses, whether or not earlier diagnosis leads to earlier discharge in patients and what the health consequences of earlier intervention are. Future work might also consider the public health impact of different testing treatments, as test results form the basis for public health surveillance. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD2016033320. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition and major contributor to public health and economic burden in the industrialised world. The difficulties in accurate diagnosis lead to great variability in estimates of sepsis incidence. There has been even greater uncertainty regarding the incidence of and risk factors for community-onset sepsis (COS). We systematically reviewed the recent evidence on the incidence and risk factors of COS in high income countries (North America, Australasia, and North/Western Europe). METHODS: Cohort and case-control studies were eligible for inclusion. Medline and Embase databases were searched from 2002 onwards. References of relevant publications were hand-searched. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full-texts independently. One reviewer extracted data and appraised studies which were cross-checked by independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95 percent confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were ascertained by type of sepsis (non-severe, severe, and septic shock). RESULTS: Ten cohort and 4 case-control studies were included. There was a wide variation in the incidence (# cases per 100,000 per year) of non-severe sepsis (range: 64-514), severe sepsis (range: 40-455), and septic shock (range: 9-31). Heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling. Two cohort and 4 case-control studies reported risk factors for sepsis. In one case-control and one cohort study, older age and diabetes were associated with increased risk of sepsis. The same case-control study showed an excess risk for sepsis in participants with clinical conditions (e.g., immunosuppression, lung disease, and peripheral artery disease). In one cohort study, higher risk of sepsis was associated with being a nursing home resident (OR = 2.60, 95 % CI: 1.20, 5.60) and in the other cohort study with being physically inactive (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI: 1.13, 1.56) and smoking tobacco (OR = 1.85, 95 % CI: 1.54, 2.22). The evidence on sex, ethnicity, statin use, and body mass index as risk factors was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a valid standard approach for defining sepsis makes it difficult to determine the true incidence of COS. Differences in case ascertainment contribute to the variation in incidence of COS. The evidence on COS is limited in terms of the number and quality of studies. This review highlights the urgent need for an accurate and standard method for identifying sepsis. Future studies need to improve the methodological shortcomings of previous research in terms of case definition, identification, and surveillance practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023484.

Community-onset sepsis and its public health burden: protocol of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition and major contributor of public health and economic burden in the industrialised world. The heterogeneity, absence of more specific definition, and difficulties in accurate diagnosis lead to great variability in the estimates of sepsis incidence. There has been uncertainty regarding the incidence and risk factors attributable to community-onset as opposed to hospital-acquired sepsis. Community-onset sepsis has distinct host characteristics, risk factors, pathogens, and prognosis. A systematic assessment of recent evidence is warranted in light of secular changes in epidemiology, pathogens, and the uncertainties around the incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis. This protocol describes a systematic review which aims to synthesise the recent empirical evidence on the incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in high-income countries. METHODS/DESIGN: English-language publications of cohort and case-control studies reporting incidence and risk factors of community-onset sepsis will be eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE and Embase databases will be searched from 2002 and onwards. References of relevant publications will be hand-searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts as well as extract data and appraise the risk of bias of included studies. The data extractions and risk of bias assessments will be cross-checked. Any disagreements will be resolved via consensus. The data on incidence and risk factors of sepsis will be organised and synthesised in text, tables, and forest plots. The evidence will be pooled given sufficient data and degree of similarity across study populations, exposures, and outcomes. The heterogeneity will be assessed through visual inspection of forest plots, Chi-square-based p value, and I (2) statistic. The sources of heterogeneity will be explored via subgroup analysis. DISCUSSION: Timeliness and accuracy of diagnosis of sepsis are both crucial aspects for improving the patient's outcome. The findings of this review will be discussed with a view to better inform future recommendations on improving public-facing campaigns, timely presentation, and diagnosis of sepsis in the community. The review will also discuss gaps in evidence and highlight future research and policy-making avenues for improving public health planning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023484.

Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer.

CONTEXT: For the treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), uncertainties remain over the perioperative and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for the many different surgical techniques and approaches of nephrectomy. Controversy also remains on whether newer minimally invasive nephron-sparing interventions offer better QoL and perioperative outcomes, and whether adrenalectomy and lymphadenectomy should be performed simultaneously with nephrectomy. These non-oncological outcomes are important because they may have a considerable impact on localised RCC treatment decision making. OBJECTIVE: To review systematically all the relevant published literature comparing perioperative and QoL outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The outcome measures were QoL, analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, time to normal activity level, surgical morbidity and complications, ischaemia time, renal function, blood loss, length of operation, need for blood transfusion, and perioperative mortality. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 380 full-text articles were assessed, and 29 studies met the inclusion criteria (7 RCTs and 22 NRSs). There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. There is good evidence indicating that partial nephrectomy results in better preservation of renal function and better QoL outcomes than radical nephrectomy regardless of technique or approach. Regarding radical nephrectomy, the laparoscopic approach has better perioperative outcomes than the open approach, and there is no evidence of a difference between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Alternatives to standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) such as hand-assisted, robot-assisted, or single-port techniques appear to have similar perioperative outcomes. There is no good evidence to suggest that minimally invasive procedures such as cryotherapy or radiofrequency ablation have superior perioperative or QoL outcomes to nephrectomy. Regarding concomitant lymphadenectomy during nephrectomy, there were low event rates for complications, and no definitive difference was observed. There was no evidence to base statements about concomitant ipsilateral adrenalectomy during nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy results in significantly better preservation of renal function over radical nephrectomy. For tumours where partial nephrectomy is not technically feasible, there is no evidence that alternative procedures or techniques are better than LRN in terms of perioperative or QoL outcomes. In making treatment decisions, perioperative and QoL outcomes should be considered in conjunction with oncological outcomes. Overall, there was a paucity of data regarding QoL outcomes, and when reported, both QoL and perioperative outcomes were inconsistently defined, measured, or reported. The current evidence base has major limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias.

Systematic review of oncological outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer.

CONTEXT: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 2-3% of adult malignancies. There remain uncertainties over the oncological outcomes for the surgical management of localised RCC. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review relevant literature comparing oncological outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to October 2010, and an updated scoping search was performed up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The main outcomes were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, recurrence, and metastases. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 389 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 28 NRSs). Meta-analyses were planned but were deemed inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence across the evidence base. Open radical nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy showed similar cancer-specific and overall survival, but when both open and laparoscopic approaches are considered together, the evidence showed improved survival for partial nephrectomy for tumours ≤4cm. The overall evidence suggests either equivalent or better survival with partial nephrectomy. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy offered equivalent survival to open radical nephrectomy, and all laparoscopic approaches achieved equivalent survival. Open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy achieved equivalent survival. The issue of ipsilateral adrenalectomy or complete lymph node dissection with radical nephrectomy or partial nephrectomy remains unresolved. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base suggests localised RCCs are best managed by nephron-sparing surgery where technically feasible. However, the current evidence base has significant limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias.

Cost-effectiveness of left ventricular-assist devices in end-stage heart failure.

With a limited supply of donor hearts, individuals with end-stage heart failure have been offered hope through the use of mechanical devices. Left ventricular-assist devices (LVADs) are a technology designed to work in parallel with the heart but have yet to see widespread use since uncertainty remains as to the cost-effectiveness of this evolving new technology. We have systematically reviewed evidence of cost-effectiveness for LVADs in the bridge-to-transplant and long-term chronic support indications. A total of 18 studies reporting costs were identified. Of these, only four studies reported results in cost-effectiveness terms; two in cost per life-year saved and two in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The majority of the other studies were simple cost summations (cost per day or incremental cost) without consideration of efficacy. In the bridge-to-transplant indication, a Danish abstract reported a cost per life-year saved of DKK270k (US$48,000), a UK study reported a cost per QALY of GB pound39,787 (US$78,000) and a Canadian study reported a cost per life-year saved of Can$91,332 (US$86,000). Regarding the long-term chronic support indication, the same Canadian study reported a cost per life-year saved of Can$59,842 (US$56,000), whereas a US study reported a cost per QALY of $36,255-60,057. Assuming a willingness to pay the threshold of GB pound30,000 (US$59,000) per QALY, there is arguably stronger evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of LVAD technology for the long-term chronic support indication. However, the methodological quality of the majority of studies was poor, as was their generalizability, raising concerns over the reliability of these figures. With the limited and declining availability of donor hearts for transplantation, it appears that the future of this technology is in its use as long-term chronic support. Further analyses should be undertaken, particularly alongside randomized, controlled trials and utilizing second- and third-generation devices.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for people with end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for people with end-stage heart failure is assessed through a systematic review and economic evaluation. METHODS: Systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials, quasiexperimental studies, case series, and case studies identified through searching eighteen electronic databases, bibliographies, and consultation with experts and manufacturers. Studies assessed survival, functional capacity, and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a 5-year decision analytic model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for using left ventricular assist devices compared with usual care. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, showing that left ventricular assist devices appear beneficial, improving survival and quality of life. Adverse events are a serious concern. The economic evaluation showed that left ventricular assist devices had a cost per quality adjusted life year of 170,616 pounds. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness was not sensitive to changes in costs or utility. CONCLUSIONS: Although left ventricular assist devices appear clinically effective as destination therapy, it is unlikely they will be cost-effective unless costs decrease or the benefits of their use increase.

Endoscopic sinus surgery for the excision of nasal polyps: A systematic review of safety and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) has been used for >20 years for the management of sinus disease including the excision of nasal polyps. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of safety and effectiveness of FESS for the removal of nasal polyps. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, other databases, and websites were searched in January and December 2005 using key words for nasal polyps and endoscopic surgery. All randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparative studies, and case series studies that described outcomes associated with FESS for the excision of nasal polyps were included. Forty-two publications were included from the 632 (6.6%) articles initially identified. Two reviewers assessed validity of included studies and extracted relevant data. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials, 4 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 35 case series studies were included in the review. FESS was compared with endoscopic polypectomy, Caldwell-Luc, radical nasalization, and intranasal ethmoidectomy. In general, studies were of poor quality and lacked description of important variables influencing surgical outcome. Overall complications for FESS from case series studies ranged from 0.3 to 22.4% (median, 7.0%). Major complications ranged from 0 to 1.5% (median, 0%) and minor complications ranged from 1.1 to 20.8% (median, 7.5%). The potentially most serious complications were cerebrospinal fluid leaks, injury to the internal carotid artery, dural exposure, meningitis, bleeding requiring transfusion, periorbital/orbital fat exposure, and orbital penetration. Symptomatic improvement ranged from 78 to 88% for FESS compared with 43 to 84% for comparative procedures. From case series, symptomatic improvement ranged from 40 to 98% (median, 88%). CONCLUSION: FESS may offer some advantages in safety and effectiveness over comparative techniques, but wide variation in reported results and methodological shortcomings of studies limit the certainty of these conclusions. Wide variation in complication rates suggests the need for audit of existing practice. Additional high-quality studies with a fuller description of potential confounding factors and effect modifiers will help to define the effectiveness of FESS more clearly.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation for people with end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

AIMS: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular (LV) assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant (BTT) for people with end-stage heart failure (ESHF) through a systematic review and economic evaluation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The systematic review and economic evaluation was conducted according to internationally recognized methods. The search strategy identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and observational studies evaluating the effects of LVADs on survival, functional capacity, and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through a 5-year decision analytic model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of LVADs compared with usual care. Despite the poor methodological quality of the 18 studies included, LVADs appear beneficial improving survival, functional status, and quality of life. Adverse events are a serious concern. The economic evaluation showed that LVADs had a cost per quality adjusted life year of pound 65,242 (95% confidence interval pound 34,194-364,564). Sensitivity analysis showed that post-heart transplant survival gains, pre-heart transplant patient utility, and one-off costs associated with implantation determine cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Although LVADs appear clinically effective as a BTT for people with ESHF, it is unlikely that they will be cost-effective unless costs decrease or the benefits of their use increase.

Screening for Hepatitis C in injecting drug users: a cost utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C is a major public health problem of increasing importance among injecting drug users, among whom screening has been proposed. We therefore estimated the cost utility of screening for hepatitis C infection among people with a history of injecting drug use in contact with drug misuse services. METHODS: A spreadsheet-based model of screening using ELISA followed by polymerase chain reaction tests and treatment using combination therapy with interferon alpha and ribavirin was developed. Parameters were informed by literature review, expert opinion and a survey of current screening practice in England. A range of one-way sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore uncertainty in the results for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Screening for HCV is likely to yield benefits in the population concerned at around 28,000 pounds per quality adjusted life year. This estimate is reasonably stable when explored in extensive one-way sensitivity analysis but appeared sensitive to the proportion of HCV positive people who accept biopsy or treatment and the utility gains associated with successful drug treatment. Important other areas of uncertainty include the effects of mortality from other causes on the cost effectiveness of screening in this population and the time at which symptoms would have led to presentation in the absence of a screening programme. CONCLUSION: Screening for HCV in this population is moderately cost effective, although some caution must remain in accepting this estimate given the current uncertainties in this field, and further research is required.

Screening for hepatitis C in genito-urinary medicine clinics: a cost utility analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To estimate the cost utility (cost per QALY) of screening for hepatitis C (HCV) infection in people attending genito-urinary medicine clinics in England. METHODS: An epidemiological model of screening and diagnosis was combined with a Markov chain model of treatment with combination therapy to estimate cost utility. Parameters for the model were informed by literature review, expert opinion and a survey of current screening practice. RESULTS: The base case estimate was about pound 85,000 per QALY. Selective screening is more cost effective. If screening is restricted to only 20% or 10% of attenders, cost utility is estimated as pound 39,647 and pound 34,288 per QALY. If screening is restricted only to those with a history of injecting drug use, cost utility would be pound 27,138 per QALY. Estimates are particularly sensitive to acceptance rates for screening and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for HCV in GUM clinics is unlikely to be cost effective. There is limited evidence to support screening of people other than those with a history of injecting drug use and even this policy should be considered with some care and in the context of further research.