Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. RESULTS: The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group's lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. FUTURE WORK: Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Third molars, commonly known as wisdom teeth, may come through the gum (erupt) without any problems, usually during young adulthood (aged 18­24 years). However, in some cases they are unable to erupt because they are poorly aligned or obstructed by other teeth, gums or bone. They are then referred to as 'impacted'. Historically, dentists often recommended that these teeth be removed, so as not to cause problems later in life. This is referred to as 'prophylactic' removal. In 2000, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviewed this practice and recommended that these teeth should not be removed if they are not bothersome to the person. Many dentists and oral surgeons have disagreed with this decision, believing that it is more difficult to remove these teeth later in life, and that there are more complications for the patient if they are removed later in life. Our review group carried out a systematic review of the available clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of the prophylactic removal of impacted third molars. The review identified four clinical studies, none of which provided strong evidence for or against the prophylactic removal of these teeth. These findings are similar to those of nine previous reviews. There is also very little research reported that relates to the cost-effectiveness of the procedure, with only three studies identified. With the available evidence on the rates of extraction and the symptoms experienced by people who keep their impacted mandibular third molar, we built an exploratory economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of recommending prophylactic removal compared with that of recommending watchful waiting. Results from the model suggested that a prophylactic removal strategy costs more than a watchful waiting strategy, but leads to improvements in quality of life. When the costs and quality-of-life measures that are associated with the two strategies are compared, the resulting statistic is £11,741 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, which would probably be good value for money for the NHS.

The specification, acceptability and effectiveness of respite care and short breaks for young adults with complex healthcare needs: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The number of young adults with complex healthcare needs due to life-limiting conditions/complex physical disability has risen significantly as children with complex conditions survive into adulthood. Respite care and short breaks are an essential service, however, needs often go unmet after the transition to adult services, leading to a significant impact on the life expectancy and quality of life for this population. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise relevant evidence to explore respite care and short breaks provision for this population, and to develop a conceptual framework for understanding service models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods systematic review conducted in two stages: (1) knowledge map and (2) evidence review. We will comprehensively search multiple electronic databases; use the Citations, Lead authors, Unpublished materials, Google Scholar, Theories, Early examples, and Related projects (CLUSTER) approach, search relevant websites and circulate a 'call for evidence'. Using the setting, perspective, intervention/phenomenon of interest, comparison and evaluation framework, two reviewers will independently select evidence for inclusion into a knowledge map and subsequent evidence review, extract data relating to study and population characteristics, methods and outcomes; and assess the quality of evidence. A third reviewer will arbitrate where necessary.Evidence will be synthesised using the following approaches: quantitative (narratively/conducting meta-analyses where appropriate); qualitative (framework approach); policy and guidelines (documentary analysis informed approach). An overall, integrated synthesis will be created using a modified framework approach. We will use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)/GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess the strength and confidence of the synthesised evidence. Throughout, we will develop a conceptual framework to articulate how service models work in relation to context and setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a systematic review. We will present our work in academic journals, at appropriate conferences; we will disseminate findings across networks using a range of media. Steering and advisory groups were established to ensure findings are shared widely and in accessible formats. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018088780.

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments currently licensed in Europe and recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the first-line treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2001 to 2010 was carried out. Relative treatment effects for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using standard meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison methodology. A total of 23 RCTs were included: 18 trials compared platinum-based chemotherapy, two compared pemetrexed and three compared gefitinib. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between any of the four third-generation chemotherapy regimens. There is statistically significant evidence that pemetrexed+platinum increases OS compared with gemcitabine+platinum. There are no statistically significant differences in OS between gefitinib and docetaxel+platinum or between gefitinib and paclitaxel+platinum. There is a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib compared with docetaxel+platinum and gefitinib compared with paclitaxel+platinum. Due to reduced generic pricing, third-generation chemotherapy regimens (except vinorelbine) are still competitive options for most patients. This research provides a comprehensive evidence base, which clinicians and decision-makers can use when deciding on the optimal first-line chemotherapy treatment regimen for patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Allopurinol for the treatment of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The term chronic kidney disease (CKD) is used to describe abnormal kidney function (or structure). People with CKD have an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Evidence is emerging that allopurinol may have a role to play in slowing down the progression of CKD and reducing the risk of CVD. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review addresses the research question: does allopurinol reduce mortality, the progression of chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular risk in people with CKD? DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched on 7 January 2013: MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 28 December 2012), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2013) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined and two manufacturers of allopurinol were approached for data. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias by one reviewer and independently checked for accuracy by a second. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, where possible, data were pooled. Meta-analysis was carried out using fixed-effects models. RESULTS: Efficacy evidence was derived solely from four randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adverse event (AE) data were derived from the RCTs and 21 observational studies. Progression of CKD was measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in three trials and by changes in serum creatinine in the other. No significant differences in eGFR over time were reported. The only significant difference between groups was reported in one trial at 24 months favouring allopurinol [eGFR: 42.2 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), standard deviation (SD) 13.2 vs. 35.9 ml/minute/1.73 m(2), SD 12.3 ml/minute/1.73 m(2); p < 0.001]. In this same trial, there were twice as many cardiovascular events in the control arm (27%) as in the allopurinol arm (12%). Another trial reported an improvement in CKD progression as measured by serum creatinine in the allopurinol arm. No significant differences were reported in blood pressure between treatment groups in the meta-analyses. The incidence of AEs was estimated to be around 9% from all studies. The incidence of severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), which typically occurred within the first 2 months after allopurinol commencement, was reported to be 2% in two studies. Evidence for whether or not AEs and SCARs were dose related was conflicting. Not all patients had CKD in these studies. LIMITATIONS: None of the included studies reported concealment of allocation, one of the greatest risks to study validity. Relatively few (< 115) patients were enrolled in any RCT. For studies reporting AEs, the main limitation is the heterogeneity across studies. No studies examining quality-of-life measures were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that allopurinol reduces CKD progression or cardiovascular events. It appears that AEs and in particular serious adverse events attributable to allopurinol are rare. However, the exact incidence of AEs in patients with CKD is unknown. Direct evidence for the impact of allopurinol on quality of life is lacking. Given the uncertainties in the evidence base, additional RCT evidence comparing allopurinol with usual care is required, accompanied by supporting data from observational studies of patients with CKD and using allopurinol. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003642. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.