Fundus autofluorescence imaging: systematic review of test accuracy for the diagnosis and monitoring of retinal conditions.

We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy of fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging for diagnosing and monitoring retinal conditions. Searches in November 2014 identified English language references. Sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDION databases; reference lists of retrieved studies; and internet pages of relevant organisations, meetings, and trial registries. For inclusion, studies had to report FAF imaging accuracy quantitatively. Studies were critically appraised using QUADAS risk of bias criteria. Two reviewers conducted all review steps. From 2240 unique references identified, eight primary research studies met the inclusion criteria. These investigated diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging for choroidal neovascularisation (one study), reticular pseudodrusen (three studies), cystoid macular oedema (two studies), and diabetic macular oedema (two studies). Diagnostic sensitivity of FAF imaging ranged from 32 to 100% and specificity from 34 to 100%. However, owing to methodological limitations, including high and/or unclear risks of bias, none of these studies provides conclusive evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of FAF imaging. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. In most studies, the patient spectrum was not reflective of those who would present in clinical practice and no studies adequately reported whether FAF images were interpreted consistently. No studies of monitoring accuracy were identified. An update in October 2016, based on MEDLINE and internet searches, identified four new studies but did not alter our conclusions. Robust quantitative evidence on the accuracy of FAF imaging and how FAF images are interpreted is lacking. We provide recommendations to address this.

Education to improve quality of life of people with chronic inflammatory skin conditions: a systematic review of the evidence.

Patient and carer education has been proposed as a way of improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among people with chronic inflammatory skin conditions. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of education that specifically addresses HRQoL among people with chronic inflammatory skin conditions. We searched 12 literature databases and other sources (up to July 2014). Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the review inclusion criteria. Data from these RCTs were extracted and critically appraised. Two RCTs showed that for psoriasis in adults, group-based and text message education (as adjuncts to usual care) resulted in better HRQoL and disease severity outcomes than comparators, respectively. One RCT found that group-based education for children with eczema (atopic dermatitis) and their parents resulted in greater improvements in parents' HRQoL and in the children's disease severity than no education at 12 months. The remaining RCTs evaluated an educational session for psoriasis, a website for carers of children with eczema, information on skincare and make-up use given to women with acne, and an itch-coping programme for a range of conditions, all as adjuncts to usual care. None of these RCTs found statistically significant effects on HRQoL or disease severity compared with usual care. Common features of the effective interventions were long delivery (over 6 weeks to 3 months) and delivery by a multidisciplinary team. Overall, the evidence base is currently limited and generally has an unclear risk of bias. There is a need for more large RCTs evaluating piloted and theory-based interventions.

Dasatinib, high-dose imatinib and nilotinib for the treatment of imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The present report was commissioned as a supplement to an existing technology assessment report produced by the Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), which evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib in patients who are either resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib. OBJECTIVES: This report evaluates the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib within their licensed indications for the treatment of people with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) who are resistant to standard-dose imatinib. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to January 2011, including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were screened, key conferences were searched, and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: This report includes systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, an independent appraisal of information submitted by drug manufacturers to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), an independent appraisal of the PenTAG economic evaluation, and new economic analyses adapting the PenTAG economic model. Standard systematic procedures involving two reviewers to maintain impartiality and transparency, and to minimise bias, were conducted. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Four of these studies included new data published since the PenTAG report; all of these were in chronic-phase CML. No relevant studies on the clinical effectiveness of nilotinib were found. The clinical effectiveness studies on dasatinib [one arm of a randomised controlled trial (RCT)] and high-dose imatinib (one arm of a RCT and three single-arm cohort studies) had major methodological limitations. These limitations precluded a comparison of the different arms within the RCT. Data from the studies are summarised in this report, but caution in interpretation is required. One economic evaluation was identified that compared dasatinib with high-dose imatinib in patients with chronic-phase CML who were CML resistant to standard-dose imatinib. Two industry submissions and the PenTAG economic evaluation were critiqued and differences in the assumptions and results were identified. The PenTAG economic model was adapted and new analyses conducted for the interventions dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib and the comparators interferon alfa, standard-dose imatinib, stem cell transplantation and hydroxycarbamide. The results suggest that the three interventions, dasatinib, nilotinib and high-dose imatinib, have similar costs and cost-effectiveness compared with hydroxycarbamide, with a cost-effectiveness of around £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, it is not possible to derive firm conclusions about the relative cost-effectiveness of the three interventions owing to great uncertainty around data inputs. Uncertainty was explored using deterministic sensitivity analyses, threshold analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: The paucity of good-quality evidence should be considered when interpreting this report. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified very limited new information on clinical effectiveness of the interventions over that already shown in the PenTAG report. Limitations in the data exist; however, the results of single-arm studies suggest that the interventions can lead to improvements in haematological and cytogenetic responses in people with imatinib-resistant CML. The economic analyses do not highlight any one of the interventions as being the most cost-effective; however, the analysis results are highly uncertain owing to lack of agreement on appropriate assumptions. Recommendations for future research made by PenTAG, for a good-quality RCT comparing the three treatments remain.

Bone-anchored hearing aids for people with bilateral hearing impairment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are indicated for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who can benefit from amplification of sound. In resource limited health care systems, it is important that evidence regarding the benefit of BAHAs is critically appraised to aid decision-making. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To assess the clinical effectiveness of BAHAs for people with bilateral hearing impairment. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2009. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and BAHA manufacturers. EVALUATION METHOD: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment of full papers were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through narrative review with tabulation of results. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Studies suggested audiological benefits of BAHAs when compared with bone-conduction hearing aids or no aiding. A mixed pattern of results was seen when BAHAs were compared to air-conduction hearing aids. Improvements in quality of life with BAHAs were found by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic quality of life measures. Issues such as improvement of discharging ears and length of time the aid can be worn were not adequately addressed by the studies. Studies demonstrated some benefits of bilateral BAHAs. Adverse events data were limited. The quality of the studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is weak. As such, caution is indicated in the interpretation of presently available data. However, based on the available evidence, BAHAs appear to be a reasonable treatment option for people with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. Further research into the benefits of BAHAs, including quality of life, is required to reduce the uncertainty.

Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) for people who are bilaterally deaf: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable sound processor that clips onto the fixture. BAHAs are suitable for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who cannot benefit fully from conventional hearing aids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BAHAs for people who are bilaterally deaf. DATA SOURCES: Nineteen electronic resources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (inception to November 2009). Additional studies were sought from reference lists and clinical experts. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Prospective studies of adults or children with bilateral hearing loss were eligible. Comparisons were BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing and ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs. Outcomes included hearing measures, validated measures of quality of life (QoL), adverse events and measures of cost-effectiveness. For the review of cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations were eligible. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included (seven cohort pre-post studies and five cross-sectional 'audiological comparison' studies). No prospective studies comparing BAHAs with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies and meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in outcome measures and patient populations. There appeared to be some audiological benefits of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs; however, ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes. The limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identified by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefits of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. Prospective case series reported between 6.1% and 19.4% loss of implants. Most participants experienced no or minor skin reactions. A decision analytic model was developed. Costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs were estimated over a 10-year time horizon, applying discount rates of 3.5%. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £ 16,409 for children and £ 13,449 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between £ 55,642 and £ 119,367 for children and between £ 46,628 and £ 100,029 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for ≥ 8 or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values (£ 500,000-1,200,000 per QALY gained) associated with a high proportion of people using BCHA. More acceptable values (£ 15,000-37,000 per QALY gained) were associated with a low proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day (compared with BAHA). LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation presented in this report is severely limited by a lack of robust evidence on the outcome of hearing aid provision. This has lead to a more restricted analysis than was originally anticipated (limited to a comparison of BAHA and BCHA). In the absence of useable QoL data, the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on potential utility gains from hearing, that been inferred using a QoL instrument rather than measures reported by hearing aid users themselves. As a result the analysis is regarded as exploratory and the reported results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost-effective option where the benefits (in terms of hearing gain and probability of using of alternative aids) are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for ≥ 8 hours per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost-effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost-effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs. Further research into the non-audiological benefits of BAHAs, including QoL, is required.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term weight management schemes for adults: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multicomponent weight management schemes for adults in terms of weight loss and maintenance of weight loss. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to December 2009, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were screened, key conferences and symposia were searched and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: For the clinical effectiveness review, two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer using a pre-piloted inclusion flow chart. The studies were long-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants who were classified by body mass index as overweight or obese. Interventions were multicomponent weight management programmes (including diet, physical activity and behaviour change strategies) that assessed weight measures. Programmes that involved the use of over-the-counter medicines licensed in the UK were also eligible. For the cost-effectiveness review two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit or cost-consequence analyses were eligible. Data were extracted using a standardised and pre-piloted data extraction form. The quality of included studies was assessed using standard criteria. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. RESULTS: A total of 3358 references were identified, of which 12 were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Five RCTs compared multicomponent interventions with non-active comparator groups. In general, weight loss appeared to be greater in the intervention groups than in the comparator groups. Two RCTs compared multicomponent interventions that focused on the diet component. In these studies there were no statistically significant differences in weight loss between interventions. Four RCTs compared multicomponent interventions that focused on the physical activity component. There was little consistency in the pattern of results seen, in part owing to the differences in the interventions. In one RCT the intervention focused on the goal-setting interval and it appeared that weight loss was greatest in those given daily goals compared with weekly goals. Overall, where measured, it appeared that most groups began to regain weight at further follow-up. Of the 419 studies identified in the cost-effectiveness searches, none met the full inclusion criteria. Two economic evaluations are described in our review; however, caution is required in their interpretation, as they did not meet all inclusion criteria. Lifetime chronic disease models were used in these studies and the models included the costs and benefits of avoiding chronic illness. Both studies found the interventions to be cost-effective, with estimates varying between -£473 and £7200 (US$12,640) per quality-adjusted life-year gained; methodological omissions from these studies were apparent and caution is therefore required in the interpretation of these results. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term multicomponent weight management interventions were generally shown to promote weight loss in overweight or obese adults. Weight changes were small however and weight regain was common. There were few similarities between the included studies; consequently an overall interpretation of the results was difficult to make. There is some evidence that weight management interventions are likely to be cost-effective, although caution is required as there were some limitations in the two cost-evaluation studies described. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The safety and effectiveness of different methods of earwax removal: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by irrigation of the ear if required. However, the safety and benefits of the different methods of removal are not known for certain. OBJECTIVES: To conduct evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions currently available for softening and/or removing earwax and any adverse events (AEs) associated with the interventions. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2008, including: The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), EMBASE (OVID); and CINAHL. METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text or retrieved papers and data were extracted by two reviewers using data extraction forms developed a priori. Any differences were resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Study criteria included: interventions - all methods of earwax removal available and combinations of these methods; participants - adults/children presenting requiring earwax removal; outcomes - measures of hearing, adequacy of clearance of wax, quality of life, time to recurrence or further treatment, AEs and measures of cost-effectiveness; design - randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) for clinical effectiveness, cohort studies for AEs and cost-effectiveness, and costing studies for cost-effectiveness. For the economic evaluation, a deterministic decision tree model was developed to evaluate three options: (1) the use of softeners followed by irrigation in primary care; (2) softeners followed by self-irrigation; and (3) a 'no treatment' option. Outcomes were assessed in terms of benefits to patients and costs incurred, with costs presented by exploratory cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical trials conducted in primary care (14 studies), secondary care (8 studies) or other care settings (4 studies), met the inclusion criteria for the review - 22 RCTs and 4 CCTs. The range of interventions included 16 different softeners, with or without irrigation, and in various different comparisons. Participants, outcomes, timing of intervention, follow-up and methodological quality varied between studies. On measures of wax clearance Cerumol, sodium bicarbonate, olive oil and water are all more effective than no treatment; triethanolamine polypeptide (TP) is better than olive oil; wet irrigation is better than dry irrigation; sodium bicarbonate drops followed by irrigation by nurse is more effective than sodium bicarbonate drops followed by self-irrigation; softening with TP and self-irrigation is more effective than self-irrigation only; and endoscopic de-waxing is better than microscopic de-waxing. AEs appeared to be minor and of limited extent. Resuts of the exploratory economic model found that softeners followed by self-irrigation were more likely to be cost-effective [24,433 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] than softeners followed by irrigation at primary care (32,130 pounds per QALY) when compared with no treatment. Comparison of the two active treatments showed that the additional gain associated with softeners followed by irrigation at primary care over softeners followed by self-irrigation was at a cost of 340,000 pounds per QALY. When compared over a lifetime horizon to the 'no treatment' option, the ICERs for softeners followed by self-irrigation and of softeners followed by irrigation at primary care were 24,450 pounds per QALY and 32,136 pounds per QALY, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review found limited good-quality evidence of the safety, benefits and costs of the different strategies, making it difficult to differentiate between the various methods for removing earwax and rendering the economic evaluation as speculative. CONCLUSIONS: Although softeners are effective, which specific softeners are most effective remains uncertain. Evidence on the effectiveness of methods of irrigation or mechanical removal was equivocal. Further research is required to improve the evidence base, such as a RCT incorporating an economic evaluation to assess the different ways of providing the service, the effectiveness of the different methods of removal and the acceptability of the different approaches to patients and practitioners.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2009, including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional references and the manufacturer's submission to NICE was also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text of retrieved papers using a standard form. For the clinical effectiveness review, the studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which included adult participants with relapsed SCLC who responded to first-line treatment and for whom re-treatment with first-line therapy was inappropriate. The treatment was topotecan (oral or intravenous, i.v.) compared with one another, best supportive care (BSC) or other chemotherapy regimens. Outcomes included measures of response or disease progression and measures of survival. For the cost-effectiveness review studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit or cost-consequence analyses. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. An independent economic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of topotecan (oral or i.v.) compared with BSC. The model used survival analysis methods to derive estimates of mean survival for patients treated with topotecan or receiving BSC alone. These were combined with quality of life (QoL) weights to derive estimates of mean quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients receiving BSC alone or topotecan plus BSC. Categories of costs included in the model included drug use, chemotherapy administration and on-treatment monitoring, management of adverse events, monitoring for disease progression and palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 434 references were identified of which five were included in the clinical effectiveness review. In these trials topotecan was compared with BSC, CAV [cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and vincristine] or amrubicin, or oral topotecan was compared with i.v. topotecan. No economic evaluations were identified. There were no statistically significant differences between groups when i.v. topotecan was compared with either CAV or oral topotecan for overall response rate (ORR). Response rate was significantly better in participants receiving i.v. amrubicin than in those receiving a low dose of i.v. topotecan (38% versus 13%, respectively, p = 0.039). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of oral topotecan compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p = 0.01). Drug acquisition costs for four cycles of treatment were estimated at 2550 pounds for oral topotecan and 5979 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Non-drug treatment costs accounted for an additional 1097 pounds for oral topotecan and 4289 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Total costs for the modelled time horizon of 5 years were 4854 pounds for BSC, 11,048 pounds for oral topotecan and between 16,914 pounds and 17,369 pounds for i.v. topotecan (depending on assumptions regarding time progression). Life expectancy was 0.4735, 0.7984 and 0.7784 years for BSC, oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan respectively. Total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.2247 and 0.4077, for BSC and oral topotecan respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 33,851 pounds per QALY gained. Total QALYs for i.v. topotecan were between 0.3875 and 0.4157 (depending on assumptions regarding time progression) resulting in an ICER between 74,074 pounds and 65,507 pounds per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan appeared to be better than BSC alone in terms of improved survival, and was as effective as CAV and less favourable than i.v. amrubicin in terms of response. Oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan were similar in efficacy. Topotecan offers additional benefit over BSC, but at increased cost. ICERs for i.v. topotecan, compared with BSC, were high and suggest that it is unlikely to be a cost-effective option. The ICER for oral topotecan is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective. Further research into the QoL of patients with relapsed SCLC could identify the impacts of disease progression and treatment response.

Ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's main evidence came from three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of reasonable methodological quality and measuring a range of clinically relevant outcomes. Higher proportions of participants treated with ustekinumab (45 mg and 90 mg) than with placebo or etanercept achieved an improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of at least 75% (PASI 75) after 12 weeks. There were also statistically significant differences in favour of ustekinumab over placebo for PASI 50 and PASI 90 results, and for ustekinumab over etanercept for PASI 90 results. A weight-based subgroup dosing analysis for each trial was presented, but the methodology was poorly described and no statistical analysis to support the chosen weight threshold was presented. The manufacturer carried out a mixed treatment comparison (MTC); however, the appropriateness of some of the methodological aspects of the MTC is uncertain. The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups at 12 weeks and withdrawals due to adverse events were low and less frequent in the ustekinumab than in the placebo or etanercept groups; however, statistical comparisons were not reported. The manufacturer's economic model of treatments for psoriasis compared ustekinumab with other biological therapies. The model used a reasonable approach; however, it is not clear whether the clinical effectiveness estimates from the subgroup analysis, used in the base-case analysis, were methodologically appropriate. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ustekinumab versus supportive care was 29,587 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In one-way sensitivity analysis the model was most sensitive to the number of hospital days associated with supportive care, the cost estimate for intermittent etanercept 25 mg and the utility scores used. In the ERG's scenario analysis the model was most sensitive to the price of ustekinumab 90 mg, the proportion of patients with baseline weight > 100 kg and the relative risk of intermittent versus continuous etanercept 25 mg. In the ERG's probabilistic sensitivity analysis ustekinumab had the highest probability of being cost-effective at conventional NICE thresholds, assuming the same price for the 45-mg and 90-mg doses; however, doubling the price of ustekinumab 90 mg resulted in ustekinumab no longer dominating the comparators. In conclusion, the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in relation to other drugs in this class is uncertain. Provisional NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that ustekinumab is recommended as a treatment option for adults with plaque psoriasis when a number of criteria are met. Final guidance is anticipated in September 2009.

Gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine with paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in patients who have already received chemotherapy treatment with an anthracycline, compared with current standard of care, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The clinical evidence for gemcitabine as a treatment for MBC comes from the unpublished JHQG trial (some data commercial-in-confidence): overall survival was 3 months longer for the gemcitabine/paclitaxel arm (18.5 months) than for the paclitaxel arm (15.8 months) (p = 0.0489); gemcitabine/paclitaxel also improved tumour response and time to documented progression of disease compared with paclitaxel monotherapy, but haematological serious adverse events were more common. In the absence of any formal methods of indirect comparison there is insufficient robust evidence to compare the relative effectiveness of gemcitabine/paclitaxel with docetaxel monotherapy or docetaxel/capecitabine combination therapy. The manufacturers used a Markov state transition model to estimate the effect of treatment with five different chemotherapy regimes, adopting a 3-year time horizon with docetaxel monotherapy as the comparator. Health state utilities for different stages of disease progression and for patients experiencing treatment-related toxicity are used to derive quality-adjusted life expectancy with each treatment. The base-case cost-effectiveness estimate for gemcitabine/paclitaxel versus docetaxel is 17,168 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When longer survival with docetaxel is assumed in a sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 30,000 pounds per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimates a 70% probability of gemcitabine/paclitaxel being cost-effective relative to docetaxel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 35,000 pounds. There is considerable uncertainty over the results because of the lack of formal quality assessment or assessment of the comparability of the 15 trials included in the input data, and the questionable validity of the indirect comparison method adopted. An illustrative analysis using a different method for indirect comparison carried out by the ERG produces an ICER of 45,811 pounds per QALY for gemcitabine/paclitaxel versus docetaxel. The guidance issued by NICE in November 2006 as a result of the STA states that gemcitabine in combination with paclitaxel, within its licensed indication, is recommended as an option for the treatment of MBC only when docetaxel monotherapy or docetaxel plus capecitabine is also considered appropriate.

Adalimumab for the treatment of psoriasis.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's clinical evidence came from three randomised controlled trials comparing adalimumab with placebo, two extension studies and one ongoing open-label extension study. The studies were of reasonable quality and measured a range of clinically relevant outcomes. A higher proportion of patients on 40 mg adalimumab every other week achieved an improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of at least 75% (PASI 75) compared with placebo groups after 12 or 16 weeks of treatment, and there was a statistically significant difference in favour of adalimumab for the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 50 and a PASI 90. In a mixed treatment comparison, for each PASI outcome the probability of a response was greater for infliximab than for adalimumab, but the probability of response with adalimumab was greater than that with etanercept, efalizumab and non-biological systemic therapies. Adverse event rates were similar in the treatment and placebo arms and discontinuations because of adverse events were low and comparable between groups. The submission's economic model presents treatment effectiveness for adalimumab versus other biological therapies based upon utility values obtained from two clinical trials. The model is generally internally consistent and appropriate to psoriasis in terms of structural assumptions and the methods used are appropriate. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adalimumab compared with supportive care for patients with severe psoriasis was 30,538 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. Scenario analysis shows that the model was most sensitive to the utility values used. Weaknesses of the clinical evidence included not undertaking a systematic review of the comparator trials, providing very little in the way of a narrative synthesis of outcome data from the key trials and not performing a meta-analysis so that the overall treatment effect of adalimumab achieved across the trials is unknown. Weaknesses of the economic model included that the assumptions made to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent etanercept used inconsistent methodology for costs and benefits and there were no clear data on the amount of inpatient care required under supportive care. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that adalimumab is recommended as a treatment option for adults with plaque psoriasis in whom anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment is being considered and when the disease is severe and when the psoriasis has not responded to standard systemic therapies or the person is intolerant to or has a contraindication to these treatments.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. DATA SOURCES: Seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) > or = 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI > or = 40; BMI > or = 30 and < 40 with Type 2 diabetes at baseline; and BMI > or = 30 and < 35. Models were applied with assumptions on costs and comorbidity. RESULTS: A total of 5386 references were identified of which 26 were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions and 20 RCTs compared different surgical procedures. Bariatric surgery was a more effective intervention for weight loss than non-surgical options. In one large cohort study weight loss was still apparent 10 years after surgery, whereas patients receiving conventional treatment had gained weight. Some measures of QoL improved after surgery, but not others. After surgery statistically fewer people had metabolic syndrome and there was higher remission of Type 2 diabetes than in non-surgical groups. In one large cohort study the incidence of three out of six comorbidities assessed 10 years after surgery was significantly reduced compared with conventional therapy. Gastric bypass (GBP) was more effective for weight loss than vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) was more effective than AGB in one study. GBP and banded GBP led to similar weight loss and results for GBP versus LISG and VBG versus AGB were equivocal. All comparisons of open versus laparoscopic surgeries found similar weight losses in each group. Comorbidities after surgery improved in all groups, but with no significant differences between different surgical interventions. Adverse event reporting varied; mortality ranged from none to 10%. Adverse events from conventional therapy included intolerance to medication, acute cholecystitis and gastrointestinal problems. Major adverse events following surgery, some necessitating reoperation, included anastomosis leakage, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, band slippage and band erosion. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective in comparison to non-surgical treatment in the reviewed published estimates of cost-effectiveness. However, these estimates are likely to be unreliable and not generalisable because of methodological shortcomings and the modelling assumptions made. Therefore a new economic model was developed. Surgical management was more costly than non-surgical management in each of the three patient populations analysed, but gave improved outcomes. For morbid obesity, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (base case) ranged between 2000 pounds and 4000 pounds per QALY gained. They remained within the range regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective when assumptions for deterministic sensitivity analysis were changed. For BMI > or = 30 and 40, ICERs were 18,930 pounds at two years and 1397 pounds at 20 years, and for BMI > or = 30 and < 35, ICERs were 60,754 pounds at two years and 12,763 pounds at 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses produced ICERs which were generally within the range considered cost-effective, particularly at the long twenty year time horizons, although for the BMI 30-35 group some ICERs were above the acceptable range. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery appears to be a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for moderately to severely obese people compared with non-surgical interventions. Uncertainties remain and further research is required to provide detailed data on patient QoL; impact of surgeon experience on outcome; late complications leading to reoperation; duration of comorbidity remission; resource use. Good-quality RCTs will provide evidence on bariatric surgery for young people and for adults with class I or class II obesity. New research must report on the resolution and/or development of comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension so that the potential benefits of early intervention can be assessed.

Infliximab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical and cost-effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, in accordance with the licensed indication, based on the evidence submission from Schering-Plough to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcomes stated in the manufacturer's definition of the decision problem were severity [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score], remission rates, relapse rates and health-related quality of life. The main evidence in the submission comes from four randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing infliximab with placebo and eight RCTs comparing either etanercept or efalizumab with placebo. At week 10, patients on infliximab had a significantly higher likelihood of attaining a reduction in PASI score than placebo patients. There were also statistically significant differences between infliximab and placebo in the secondary outcomes. In the comparator trials both the efalizumab and etanercept arms included a significantly higher proportion of patients who achieved a reduction in PASI score at week 12 than the placebo arms. No head-to-head studies were identified directly comparing infliximab with etanercept or efalizumab. The manufacturer carried out an indirect comparison, but the ERG had reservations about the comparison because of the lack of information presented and areas of uncertainty in relation to the included data. The economic model presented by the manufacturer was appropriate for the disease area and given the available data. The cost-effectiveness analysis estimates the mean length of time that an individual would respond to infliximab compared with continuous etanercept and the utility gains associated with this response. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for infliximab compared with continuous etanercept for patients with severe psoriasis was 26,095 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. A one-way sensitivity analysis, a scenario analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken by the ERG. The ICER is highly sensitive to assumptions about the costs and frequency of inpatient stays for non-responders of infliximab. The guidance issued by NICE in August 2007 as a result of the STA states that infliximab within its licensed indication is recommended for the treatment of adults with very severe plaque psoriasis, or with psoriasis that has failed to respond to standard systematic therapies. Infliximab treatment should be continued beyond 10 weeks in people whose psoriasis has shown an adequate response to treatment within 10 weeks. In addition, when using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), care should be taken to take into account the patient's disabilities, to ensure DLQI continues to be an accurate measure.

Time to full publication of studies of anti-cancer medicines for breast cancer and the potential for publication bias: a short systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the expected delay between publication of conference abstracts and full publication of results from trials of new anti-cancer agents for breast cancer and to identify whether there are any apparent biases in publication and reporting. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the selected interventions for the treatment of breast cancer. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to standard methods. Data were extracted from the included studies using a predesigned and piloted data extraction template. RESULTS: Six anti-cancer treatments for breast cancer were included in the review: docetaxel, paclitaxel, trastuzumab, gemcitabine, lapatinib and bevacizumab. The literature searches generated 1556 references, from which 71 publications were retrieved and screened for inclusion. Screening identified 41 publications of 18 RCTs with at least one arm of treatment meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. Of the 18 included RCTs, only four publications (from three RCTs) reported the same outcomes in both an abstract and a full publication. Time between the abstract and full publication was 5 months in two cases, 7 months in one case and 19 months in one case (overall mean delay = 9 months). Eleven trials were identified that have not currently published in a full publication the data presented in an abstract or conference proceeding. The duration between publication of the abstracts and the end of August 2007 varied from 3 months to 38 months (mean delay 16.5 months). The longest delays in publication were for trials investigating gemcitabine (38 months) or bevacizumab (33 months). Observational analysis of the published and unpublished trials did not indicate any particular biases in terms of whether positive results were more likely to be fully published than non-significant ones. CONCLUSIONS: It was surprising that only three of the 18 relevant RCTs had one or more full papers that reported the same outcome measures (and stage of analysis) as an earlier conference abstract. However, a limitation of this review is the small number of studies included. With a larger sample size than that in the present report, investigation into the effect of publication delay on decision-making might be feasible. Future research should include extension of this work to other anti-cancer drugs and investigation into the reasons for lengthy delays to full publication noted for some trials.

Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone and ICS used in combination with a long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) in the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged over 12 years. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic bibliographic databases, e.g. MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched up to February/March 2006 (and updated again in October 2006). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness studies was conducted. Cost comparison and cost-consequence analyses were performed where appropriate. RESULTS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on the 67 randomised controlled trials selected from the 5175 reports identified through the systematic literature search. The most frequently reported relevant outcomes were lung function, symptoms, use of rescue medication and adverse events. The trials varied considerably. In the trials that compared low-dose ICS versus ICS and high-dose ICS versus ICS, there were few significant differences in clinical effectiveness, although a few of the trials had assessed non-inferiority between the comparators rather than superiority. At doses of 400, 800 and 'high-level' doses of 1500 or 1600 microg/day, beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) appears to be the current cheapest ICS product both with the inclusion and exclusion of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled products. A significant treatment benefit for combination ICS/LABA therapy across a range of outcomes compared with ICS alone was identified [when the ICS was double the accepted clinically equivalent dose of the ICS in the combination inhaler, and dry powder inhalers (DPIS) were used to deliver the drugs]. When a formoterol fumarate (FF)/salmeterol (SAL) combination inhaler and a budesonide (BUD)/FF combination inhaler were each compared with their constituent drugs delivered in separate inhalers, there were very few statistically significant differences between the treatments across the various efficacy outcomes and the rate of adverse events. Combination inhalers were more often cheaper than doubling the dose of ICS alone. However, the costs were highly variable and dependent on both the dose required and the preparation used in the trials. The estimated mean annual cost of FP/SAL combination varied from being 94 pounds cheaper to 109 pounds more expensive than the alternative of BUD at a higher dose. The BUD/FF combination varied from being 163 pounds cheaper to 66 pounds more expensive than the higher dose of either BUD or FP. When the combination inhalers were compared to each other, the results were mixed, with the FP/SAL combination significantly superior on some outcomes and the BUD/FF combination superior on others; however, meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two treatments in the rate of adverse events. Taking an ICS with a LABA as either of the two currently available combination products, FP/SAL and BUD/FF, is usually cheaper than taking the relevant constituent drugs in separate inhalers. At very high doses of BUD (1600 microg/day), however, the BUD/FF combination inhaler can be up to 156 pounds more expensive than having the same drugs in separate inhalers. In terms of the relative costs associated with taking one of the combination inhalers, at low dose (400 microg BUD or 200 microg FP/day) the cheapest combination inhaler is FP/SAL as a pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) (Seretide Evohaler). However, this is only slightly cheaper than using BUD/FF as a DPI (Symbicort Turbohaler). At higher dose levels (800 microg BUD or 500 microg FP/day) FP/SAL as either pMDI aerosol (Seretide Evohaler) or a DPI (Seretide Accuhaler) is the cheapest combination product available, but again only slightly cheaper than the DPI BUD/FF combination (Symbicort Turbohaler). It should be highlighted, however, that the three head-to-head trials that compared the effects of FP/SAL with BUD/FF used the FP/SAL DPI combination inhaler, Seretide Accuhaler. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates that there are few consistent significant differences in effects between the five ICS licensed for use in adults and adolescents over the age of 12 years, at either low or high dose. On average, BDP products currently tend to be the cheapest ICS available and tend to remain so as the daily ICS dose required increases. There is evidence that the addition of a LABA to an ICS is potentially more clinically effective than doubling the dose of ICS alone, although consistent significant differences between the two treatment strategies are not observed for all outcome measures. The cost differences between combination therapy compared with ICS monotherapy are highly variable and dependent on the dose required and the particular preparations used. For the combination therapies of ICS/LABA there are potential cost savings with the use of combination inhalers compared with separate inhalers, with few differences between the two treatment strategies in terms of effects. The only exception to this cost saving is with BUD/FF at doses higher than 1200 microg/day, where separate inhaler devices can become equivalent to or cheaper than combination inhalers. Neither of the two combination inhalers (FP/SAL or BUD/FF) is consistently superior in terms of treatment effect. A comparison of the costs associated with each combination therapy indicates that at low dose FP/SAL delivered via a pMDI is currently the cheapest combination inhaler but only marginally cheaper than BUD/FF delivered as a DPI. At higher doses, both the FP/SAL combination inhalers (PMDI and DPI) are marginally cheaper than BUD/FF (DPI). Future trials of treatment for chronic asthma should standardise the way in which outcome measures are defined and measured, with a greater focus on patient-centred outcomes. For informing future cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses from a UK NHS perspective, there is a need for longitudinal studies that comprehensively track the care pathways followed when people experience asthma exacerbations of different severity. Further research synthesis, quantifying the adverse effects of the different ICS, is required for treatment choices by patients and clinicians to be fully informed.

Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in children under the age of 12 years.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone and ICS used in combination with a long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) in the treatment of chronic asthma in children aged under 12 years. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic bibliographic databases, e.g. MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched up to February/March 2006 (and updated again in October 2006). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness studies and economic analyses were carried out. A flexible framework was used to allow different types of economic analyses as appropriate, with either a cost comparison or cost-consequence comparison conducted. RESULTS: Of 5175 records identified through systematic literature searching, 34 records describing 25 studies were included (16 were fully published randomised controlled trials, six were systematic reviews, and three were post-2004 conference abstracts). The most frequently reported relevant outcomes in the 16 RCTs were peak expiratory flow rate (13 trials), FEV1 (13 trials), symptoms (13 trials), adverse events or exacerbations (13 trials), use of rescue medication (12 trials), markers of adrenal function (e.g. blood or urine cortisol concentrations) (13 trials), height and/or growth rate (seven trials) and markers of bone metabolism (two trials). In the trials that compared low-dose ICS versus ICS and high-dose ICS versus ICS, no consistent significant differences or patterns in differential treatment effect among the outcomes were evident. Where differences were statistically significant at high doses, such as for lung function and growth, they favoured formoterol fumarate (FF), but this was generally in studies that did not compare the ICS at the accepted clinically equivalent doses. Differences between the drugs in impact on adrenal suppression were only significant in two studies. At doses of 200, 400 and 800 microg/day, beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) appears to be the current cheapest ICS product both with the inclusion and exclusion of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled products. In the trials comparing ICS at a higher dose with ICS and LABA in combination, most outcomes favoured the combined inhaler. Only the combination inhaler, Seretide Evohaler, is slightly cheaper than the weighted mean cost of all types of ICS at increased dose except BDP 400 microg/day (including CFC-propelled products). Both the combination inhalers, Seretide Accuhaler and Symbicort Turbohaler, are more expensive than the weighted mean cost for all types of ICS at a two-fold increased dose. Compared with the lowest cost preparation for each ICS drug, all the combination inhalers are always more expensive than the ICS products at increased dose. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence available indicates that there are no consistent significant differences in effectiveness between the three ICS licensed for use in children at either low or high dose. BDP CFC-propelled products are often the cheapest ICS currently available at both low and high dose, and may remain so even when CFC-propelled products are excluded. Exclusion of CFC-propelled products increases the mean annual cost of all budesonide (BUD) and BDP, while the overall cost differences between the comparators diminish. There is very limited evidence available for the efficacy and safety of ICS and LABAs in children. From this limited evidence, there appear to be no significant clinical differences in effects between the use of a combination inhaler versus the same drugs in separate inhalers. There is a lack of evidence comparing ICS at a higher dose with ICS and LABA in combination and comparing the combination products with each other. In the absence of any evidence concerning the effectiveness of ICS at higher dose with ICS and LABA, a cost-consequence analysis gives mixed results. There are potential cost savings with the use of combination inhalers compared to separate inhalers. At present prices, the BUD/FF combination is more expensive than those containing FP/SAL, but it is not known whether there are clinically significant differences between them. A scoping review is required to assess the requirements for additional primary research on the clinical effectiveness of treatment for asthma in children under 5 years old. Such a review could also usefully include all treatment options, pharmacological and non-pharmacological, for asthma. A direct head-to-head trial that compares the two combination therapies of FP/SAL and BUD/FF is warranted, and it is important to assess whether the addition of a LABA to a lower dose of ICS could potentially be as effective as an increased dose of ICS alone, but also be steroid sparing. There is also a need for the long-term adverse events associated with ICS use to be assessed systematically. Future trials of treatment for chronic asthma in children should aim to standardise further the way in which outcome measures are defined. There should be a greater focus on patient-centred outcomes to provide a more meaningful estimation of the impact of treatment on asthma control. Methods of reporting also require standardisation.

The clinical effectiveness of diabetes education models for Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness of patient education models for adults with Type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from 2002 to January 2007. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on educational interventions in diabetes was undertaken. This was an update of a previous systematic review. RESULTS: Including studies identified in the previous systematic review, there were 13 published studies. Eight studies of education on multiple aspects of diabetes self-management were identified that provided education that was focused on a particular aspect of self-management. The quality of reporting and methodology of the studies was variable. Studies of multi-component educational interventions yielded mixed results. Some trials reported significant improvements on measures of diabetic control but others did not. Positive effects may be attributable to longer-term interventions with a shorter duration between the end of the intervention and the follow-up evaluation point. There may also be an effect of having a multi-professional team delivering the educational programme. Studies of focused educational interventions did not yield consistent results. Some effects were shown on measures of diabetic control in studies that focused on diet or exercise alone. Although the effects shown were generally small, those that were present did appear to be relatively long-lasting. This update review does not substantially alter the conclusions of the previous systematic review; for each outcome, the proportion of studies that demonstrated significant effects of education was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence, it would seem that education delivered by a team of educators, with some degree of reinforcement of that education made at additional points of contact, may provide the best opportunity for improvements in patient outcomes. Educators need to have time and resources to fulfil the needs of any structured educational programme. There is also a need for education to have a clear programme at the outset. From the evidence reported it is unclear what resources would need to be directed at the educators themselves to ensure that they can deliver programmes successfully. Any future research should consider patient education within the context of overall diabetes care and as such follow guidelines for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Good-quality, longer-term studies would be desirable, but these would require careful consideration around the nature of any control group. Information is needed to clarify the sensitivity of diabetes education programmes to the performance of the diabetes educators, in order to ensure success and cost-effectiveness of education programmes.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine, used in combination with paclitaxel, as a second-line treatment for people with metastatic breast cancer who have relapsed following treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2006. Clinical advisers were also consulted. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to appraise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine. A Markov state transition model was developed for the economic evaluation. RESULTS: The systematic review identified only one randomised controlled trials (RCT), and this has not yet been fully published. The methodological quality and quality of reporting of the included trial were assessed to be poor using standard criteria, but this may be due to the lack of information in the limited publications rather than being a fair reflection of the trial's quality. This RCT compared gemcitabine and paclitaxel therapy with paclitaxel monotherapy in 529 patients with metastatic breast cancer who had previously received anthracyclines, but no prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Approximately 71% of the gemcitabine/paclitaxel patients survived for 1 year, compared with 61% of the paclitaxel group. The hazard ratio showed a 26% lower chance of survival in the paclitaxel group, and time to progressive disease was also shorter in this group. The overall response rate was higher in the gemcitabine/paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel group. Adverse events, particularly neutropenia, were more common with gemcitabine/paclitaxel combination therapy than with paclitaxel therapy alone. The economic model was run for a simulation of 1000 patients, assuming that chemotherapy continued until patients' disease progressed. This base-case analysis found an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 58,876 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and 30,117 pounds per life-year gained. The model was re-run with treatment restricted to a maximum of six cycles per patient, reflecting normal practice. This yielded an ICER of 38,699 pounds per QALY gained and 20,021 pounds per life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The review of clinical effectiveness is based on data from a single RCT that has not yet been fully published. While only tentative conclusions can be drawn from this, the evidence may indicate that treatment with gemcitabine and paclitaxel confers an improved outcome for patients in terms of survival and disease progression, but at the cost of increased toxicity. An economic model developed for this review reflects high costs per QALY for this treatment combination. The base-case analysis shows high ICERs, with costs per QALY gained close to 60,000 pounds. Adopting a more realistic treatment protocol, with chemotherapy limited to a maximum of six cycles, gives a more favourable cost-effectiveness estimate. However, this was still higher than would usually be considered to be a cost-effective treatment from the NHS's perspective. Future research recommendations include an update of this review in 12-18 months' time, by which time the included RCT should be fully published. It would also be useful to compare gemcitabine with currently used treatments for metastatic breast cancer, including capecitabine and vinorelbine.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) and of memantine for moderately severe to severe AD. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, experts in the field and manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken. The quality of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using criteria developed by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. An outline assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using a standard checklist. The clinical and cost-effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of included studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of data was undertaken. RESULTS: For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. Global outcome measures were positive for donepezil and rivastigmine, but mixed for galantamine. Results for measures of function were mixed for donepezil and rivastigmine, but positive for galantamine. Behaviour and mood measures were mixed for donepezil and galantamine, but showed no benefit for rivastigmine. For memantine, two published RCTs were included; in one of these trials the participants were already being treated with donepezil. The results suggest that memantine is beneficial when assessed using functional and global measurements. The effect of memantine on cognitive and behaviour and mood outcomes is, however, less clear. Literature on the cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine was dominated by industry-sponsored studies, and studies varied in methods and results. Of the three UK studies, two report donepezil as not cost-effective, whereas a third study reports an additional cost (1996 pounds sterling) of between 1200 pounds sterling and 7000 pounds sterling per year in a non-severe AD health state (concerns over these estimates are raised, suggesting that they may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of donepezil). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in this review suggests that donepezil treatment has a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in excess of 80,000 pounds sterling, with donepezil treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression of AD) by 1.42-1.59 months (over a 5-year period). From four published cost-effectiveness studies, two UK studies report additional costs associated with rivastigmine treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the current review suggests that rivastigmine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 57,000 pounds sterling, with rivastigmine treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.43-1.63 months (over a 5-year period). From five published cost-effectiveness studies, one UK study reports a cost per QALY of 8693 pounds sterling for 16-mg galantamine treatment and 10,051 pounds sterling for 24-mg galantamine treatment (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of galantamine). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the present review suggests that galantamine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 68,000 pounds sterling, with galantamine reducing the time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.42-1.73 months (over a 5-year period). From two published cost-effectiveness studies, one reports analysis for the UK, finding that memantine treatment results in cost savings and benefits in terms of delaying disease progression (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of memantine). In the current review, the cost-effectiveness of memantine has not been modelled separately, but where alternative parameter inputs on the cost structure and utility values have been used in a reanalysis using the industry model, the cost-effectiveness is reported at between 37,000 pounds sterling and 52,000 pounds sterling per QALY, with this alternative analysis still based on what is regarded as an optimistic or favourable effectiveness profile for memantine. CONCLUSIONS: Although results from the clinical effectiveness review suggest that these treatments may be beneficial, a number of issues need to be considered when assessing the results of the present review, such as the characteristics of the participants included in the individual trials, the outcome measures used, the length of study duration, the effects of attrition and the relationship between statistical significance and clinical significance. Many included trials were sponsored by industry. For donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine, the cost savings associated with reducing the mean time spent in full-time care do not offset the cost of treatment sufficiently to bring estimated cost-effectiveness to levels generally considered acceptable by NHS policy makers. It is difficult to draw conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of memantine; it is suggested that further amendments to the potentially optimistic industry model (measure of effect) would offer higher cost per QALY estimates. Future research should include: information on the quality of the outcome measures used; development of quality of life instruments for patients and carers; studies assessing the effects of these interventions of durations longer than 12 months; comparisons of benefits between interventions; and research on the prediction of disease progression.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine on cognition, quality of life and adverse events in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: The use of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is currently being appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Evidence (NICE). This article provides the latest evidence that NICE will be using as part of this appraisal process. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of the best quality evidence of the effects of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine on cognition, quality of life and adverse events in people with mild to moderately-severe AD. DESIGN: Electronic databases were searched, references of all retrieved articles were checked, and experts were contacted for advice, peer review and to identify additional references. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they fulfilled pre-specified criteria. Data were synthesised through a narrative review. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs that compared any one of the cholinesterase inhibitors with either a control group or with another cholinesterase inhibitor were included. The quality of reporting and methodology was varied. Treatment with donepezil, rivastigmine or galantamine resulted in significantly better cognitive performance using the ADAS-cog scale when compared with placebo. These findings were generally supported using the MMSE scale. Results from head to head comparisons were limited by the low number of studies and the study quality; generally showing no robust support for any one drug. Few studies evaluated quality of life. Adverse events were generally related to the gastrointestinal system, with a tendency for these to be more common in the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine can delay cognitive impairment in patients with mild to moderately-severe AD for at least 6 months duration.