Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care.

BACKGROUND: The primary care specialist interface is a key organisational feature of many health care systems. Patients are referred to specialist care when investigation or therapeutic options are exhausted in primary care and more specialised care is needed. Referral has considerable implications for patients, the health care system and health care costs. There is considerable evidence that the referral processes can be improved. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions to change outpatient referral rates or improve outpatient referral appropriateness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group specialised register (developed through extensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar and the Cochrane Library) (February 2002) and the National Research Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of interventions to change or improve outpatient referrals. Participants were primary care physicians. The outcomes were objectively measured provider performance or health outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 23 separate comparisons were included. Nine studies (14 comparisons) evaluated professional educational interventions. Ineffective strategies included: passive dissemination of local referral guidelines (two studies), feedback of referral rates (one study) and discussion with an independent medical adviser (one study). Generally effective strategies included dissemination of guidelines with structured referral sheets (four out of five studies) and involvement of consultants in educational activities (two out of three studies). Three studies evaluated organisational interventions (patient management by family physicians compared to general internists, attachment of a physiotherapist to general practices and requiring a second 'in-house' opinion prior to referral), all of which were effective. Five studies (six comparisons) evaluated financial interventions. Two studies evaluating change from a capitation based to mixed capitation and fee-for-service system and from a fee-for-service to a capitation based system (with an element of risk sharing for secondary care services) observed a reduction in referral rates. Modest reductions in referral rates of uncertain significance were observed following the introduction of the general practice fundholding scheme in the United Kingdom (UK). One study evaluating the effect of providing access to private specialists demonstrated an increase in the proportion of patients referred to specialist services but no overall effect on referral rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are a limited number of rigorous evaluations to base policy on. Active local educational interventions involving secondary care specialists and structured referral sheets are the only interventions shown to impact on referral rates based on current evidence. The effects of 'in-house' second opinion and other intermediate primary care based alternatives to outpatient referral appear promising.

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

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

Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies. To estimate the resource implications of these strategies. To develop a framework for deciding when it is efficient to develop and introduce clinical guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Healthstar, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, EMBASE, SIGLE and the specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. REVIEW METHODS: Single estimates of dichotomous process variables were derived for each study comparison based upon the primary end-point or the median measure across several reported end-points. Separate analyses were undertaken for comparisons of different types of intervention. The study also explored whether the effects of multifaceted interventions increased with the number of intervention components. Studies reporting economic data were also critically appraised. A survey to estimate the feasibility and likely resource requirements of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in UK settings was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care. RESULTS: In total, 235 studies reporting 309 comparisons met the inclusion criteria; of these 73% of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions, although the maximum number of replications of a specific multifaceted intervention was 11 comparisons. Overall, the majority of comparisons reporting dichotomous process data observed improvements in care; however, there was considerable variation in the observed effects both within and across interventions. Commonly evaluated single interventions were reminders, dissemination of educational materials, and audit and feedback. There were 23 comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. The majority of interventions observed modest to moderate improvements in care. No relationship was found between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. The majority of studies only reported costs of treatment; only 25 studies reported data on the costs of guideline development or guideline dissemination and implementation. The majority of studies used process measures for their primary end-point, despite the fact that only three guidelines were explicitly evidence based (and may not have been efficient). Respondents to the key informant survey rarely identified existing budgets to support guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. In general, the respondents thought that only dissemination of educational materials and short (lunchtime) educational meetings were generally feasible within current resources. CONCLUSIONS: There is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline dissemination and implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different circumstances. Decision makers need to use considerable judgement about how best to use the limited resources they have for clinical governance and related activities to maximise population benefits. They need to consider the potential clinical areas for clinical effectiveness activities, the likely benefits and costs required to introduce guidelines and the likely benefits and costs as a result of any changes in provider behaviour. Further research is required to: develop and validate a coherent theoretical framework of health professional and organisational behaviour and behaviour change to inform better the choice of interventions in research and service settings, and to estimate the efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies in the presence of different barriers and effect modifiers.

A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer with an annual incidence of 21.6 per 100,000 in England and Wales. Due to the often asymptomatic nature of the early stages of the disease, most cases are not detected until the advanced stages. Consequently, the prognosis after diagnosis is poor and the 5-year survival rate in the UK is only about 30%. Current recommendations suggest that first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer should involve paclitaxel and platinum (Pt)-based therapy (cisplatin/ carboplatin), however, most patients develop resistant or refractory disease and require second-line therapy. Patients may respond to re-challenge with Pt-agents if the treatment-free interval is > 6 months, but an alternative is often required. Topotecan is one of six drugs currently licensed in the UK for second-line therapy, and recent reviews suggest that it has modest efficacy in the treatment of advanced disease and performs favourably against paclitaxel. However, these reviews are based on a limited number of reports mainly consisting of non-randomised Phase I and II studies. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral and intravenous topotecan (Hycamtin, SmithKline Beecham, UK) for the treatment of all stages of ovarian cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: Sixteen electronic databases from inception to September 2000 and Internet resources were searched, in addition to the bibliographies of retrieved articles and submissions from pharmaceutical companies. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts and included/excluded studies based on full copies of manuscripts. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and full economic evaluations comparing topotecan to non-topotecan regimens were included. All stages of therapy and disease were considered, and the outcomes included were survival, response, symptom relief, quality of life, adverse effects and costs. METHODS: DATA EXTRACTION STRATEGY: Data were extracted into an Access database by one reviewer and checked by a second. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS: QUALITY ASSESSMENT STRATEGY: Two reviewers, using specified criteria, independently assessed the quality of the clinical effectiveness studies and the economic evaluations. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS: ANALYSIS STRATEGY: Due to the limited number of studies included in the review and the fact that they compared topotecan with different comparators, the out-come data could not be pooled statistically. Clinical effectiveness data are discussed separately under the different outcome subheadings. For time-to-event data, hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals are presented where available, and for the remaining outcomes, relative risks are reported or calculated where sufficient data were available. Relative risk data are also presented in the form of Forest plots without pooled estimates. Economic data are presented in the form of a summary and critique of the evidence, and a grading (A-I) assigned to each study indicating the direction and magnitude of the cost-effectiveness data. INCLUDED STUDIES: A total of 568 titles/abstracts were identified and screened for relevance. Full copies of 72 papers were assessed and seven published manuscripts reporting details of two studies of clinical effectiveness and one economic evaluation were included. Further details of the two clinical effectiveness studies and two new economic evaluations were identified from confidential company submissions. Overall, two international multicentre RCTs of effectiveness comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (trial 039) and topotecan with caelyx (trial 30-49) were included in the review. The three economic evaluations included in the review comprised one cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) comparing topotecan with caelyx, one cost-consequences analysis (CCA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel, etoposide and altretamine and one cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel. RESULTS: QUALITY OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS DATA: Both clinical effectiveness studies (trial 30-49 and 039) were of reasonable quality, although it was unclear whether either performed valid intention-to-treat analyses. In addition, trial 30-49 failed to state whether the outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS --QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: The CCA (comparing topotecan with three comparators) was of poor quality and of little relevance to the UK NHS. The CMA and CEA were of reasonable quality overall and relevant to the UK NHS. However, both, in particular the CEA, suffered from methodological problems, and thus their findings should be interpreted with caution. RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on limited data. Only two trials with a total of 709 participants were identified. In general, with a few minor exceptions, there were no statistically significant differences between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in survival, response rate, median time to response, median duration of response and quality of life. Significant differences that were reported were mainly identified in subgroup analyses (Pt-sensitive disease and disease without ascites) of questionable validity and their relevance to a general advanced ovarian cancer patient population undergoing second-line chemotherapy is unclear. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Topotecan was associated with increased incidences of haematological toxicities (including neutropenia, leukopenia, anaemia and thrombocytopenia), alopecia, nausea and vomiting. Caelyx-treated patients suffered from significantly increased incidences of Palmar-Plantar erythrodysesthesia, stomatitis, mucous membrane disorders and skin rashes. Paclitaxel was associated with significant increases in alopecia, arthralgia, myalgia, neuropathy, paraesthesiae, skeletal pain and flushing. RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of cost-effectiveness was also based on limited data, with three evaluations identified, one of which was not relevant. The two remaining studies, comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (CEA) and topotecan with caelyx (CMA), both used effectiveness data from multicentre RCTs and based their costs on 1999/2000 UK sources. The evaluations were conducted from a UK NHS perspective and findings presented in GB pounds/Euros. Topotecan for the second-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer was shown to be more cost-effective than paclitaxel (32,513 GB pounds versus 46,186 GB pounds per person in terms of any response (complete or partial), incremental cost-effectiveness = 3065 GB pounds) in all respects except cost per time without toxicity or symptoms, but less cost-effective than caelyx (14,023 GB pounds versus 9979 GB pounds per person regardless of whether the patient responded). However, direct comparisons of the cost findings between the two studies is difficult because they used different designs, different time horizons for the cost analyses and the findings were presented as costs per person for only patients who responded in one study (topotecan versus paclitaxel) and costs per person regardless of whether they responded in the other study (topotecan versus caelyx). CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that there is little evidence in the form of RCTs on which to base an assessment of the effectiveness of topotecan as second-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence suggests there were no statistically significant differences overall between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in clinical outcomes. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. The clinical significance of the findings is not discussed. Overall, the effects of topotecan could at best be described as modest, but the alternative agents offer no real advantages except fewer side-effects and possibly improved cost-effectiveness. Both of the clinical effectiveness studies on which this evidence is based had methodological flaws, the most serious being the lack of a blinded assessor in the topotecan versus caelyx trial, which is important for unbiased assessment of response outcomes. The economic evaluations also suffered from a number of potential problems. CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further good quality RCTs and CEAs are required comparing topotecan with other licensed and potentially useful (soon to be licensed) second-line treatments for ovarian cancer. At present, it is difficult to make any decisions about topotecan and other drugs for second-line therapy without good quality direct comparisons. In view of the ongoing studies identified, an update of the current review should be considered in approximately 18 months (Summer 2002) or possibly sooner if the recently commissioned National Institute for Clinical Excellence review of caelyx for ovarian cancer identifies additional data relevant to topotecan.

Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Increasing recognition of the failure to translate research findings into practice has led to greater awareness of the importance of using active dissemination and implementation strategies. Although there is a growing body of research evidence about the effectiveness of different strategies, this is not easily accessible to policy makers and professionals. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise, and synthesize systematic reviews of professional educational or quality assurance interventions to improve quality of care. RESEARCH DESIGN: An overview was made of systematic reviews of professional behavior change interventions published between 1966 and 1998. RESULTS: Forty-one reviews were identified covering a wide range of interventions and behaviors. In general, passive approaches are generally ineffective and unlikely to result in behavior change. Most other interventions are effective under some circumstances; none are effective under all circumstances. Promising approaches include educational outreach (for prescribing) and reminders. Multifaceted interventions targeting different barriers to change are more likely to be effective than single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the current evidence base is incomplete, it provides valuable insights into the likely effectiveness of different interventions. Future quality improvement or educational activities should be informed by the findings of systematic reviews of professional behavior change interventions.

A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in developed societies is increasing. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of co-morbidity, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Following the withdrawal of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, interest has focused on a novel anti-obesity drug orlistat. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity. METHODS - SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2000. Additionally, Internet searches were carried out, bibliographies of retrieved articles were examined and submissions were received from the manufacturer of orlistat. METHODS - INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of orlistat used for weight loss or maintenance of weight loss in overweight or obese patients were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome measures were changes in body weight, fat content or fat distribution. Secondary outcomes were changes in obesity-related risk-factor profiles, such as lipid levels, indicators of glycaemic control and blood pressure. Studies recruiting people with eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa were excluded. METHODS - PROCESS OF STUDY SELECTION: Assessment of titles and abstracts was performed independently by two reviewers. If either reviewer considered a reference to be relevant, the full paper was retrieved. Full papers were assessed against the review selection criteria by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS - DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one reviewer into structured summary tables and checked by a second reviewer. Any disagreements about data were resolved by discussion. METHODS - QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Each included trial was assessed against a comprehensive checklist for methodological quality. Quality assessment was performed independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. METHODS - METHODS OF ANALYSIS/SYNTHESIS: This report is a narrative summary, with results grouped according to study endpoint. Statistical pooling was undertaken in groups of trials that were considered to be sufficiently similar. METHODS - ESTIMATION OF QUALITY OF LIFE, COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND/OR COST PER QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEAR: Relevant economic evaluations were identified from the search strategy described above. Assessment of methodological quality was undertaken using principles outlined in published guidelines. METHODS - COMPANY SUBMISSIONS: Data from company submissions were subject to the same selection and appraisal processes as other studies considered for inclusion in the review, except that only RCTs with a duration of at least 1 year were selected. RESULTS - RESULTS OF THE SEARCH STRATEGY: Fourteen RCTs (including three company submissions) and two economic evaluations (including one company submission) were included in the review. RESULTS - RESULTS OF THE QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Methodological quality of trials was moderate to good. The main problems were lack of detail on methods used to produce true randomisation, small sample sizes in some cases and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis. It is likely that maintenance of blinding was difficult due to adverse effects associated with the study medication. RESULTS - EVIDENCE OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS: Most of the trials showed greater weight loss and better weight maintenance with orlistat compared to placebo at all endpoints (statistically significant differences for both outcomes). Orlistat 120 mg three times daily was the optimum regimen in terms of weight loss. Most trials showed significant improvement in at least some lipid concentration parameters, and, in three RCTs, orlistat produced statistically significant reductions in blood pressure relative to placebo. In obese patients with type 2 diabetes, orlistat resulted in a significantly greater weight loss at 1 year compared with placebo, and some parameters of glycaemic control and lipid concentration also showed significantly greater improvements compared with placebo. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently higher in orlistat groups compared with placebo, and orlistat use was associated with lower serum levels of fat-soluble vitamins. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year for orlistat was 45,881 UK pounds. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Although many trials have demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups in terms of weight loss in favour of orlistat versus placebo, the differences may not always be of clinical significance. The clinical significance of between-group differences for secondary outcomes may also be debatable. Possible adverse effects should be taken into account when prescribing orlistat, particularly gastrointestinal effects. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)