A randomised controlled trial of the use of aciclovir and/or prednisolone for the early treatment of Bell's palsy: the BELLS study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether oral prednisolone or aciclovir, used separately or in combination, early in the course of Bell's palsy, improves the chances of recovery at 3 and 9 months. DESIGN: A 2 x 2 factorial randomised double-blind trial. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment by an automated telephone service using a permuted block randomisation technique with block sizes of four or eight, and no stratification. SETTING: Mainland Scotland, with referrals mainly from general practice to 17 hospital trial sites. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged 16 years or older) with unilateral facial nerve weakness of no identifiable cause presenting to primary care, the emergency department or NHS24 within 72 hours of symptom onset. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive active preparations or placebo for 10 days: (1) prednisolone (50 mg per day, 2 x 25-mg capsules) and aciclovir (2000 mg per day, 5 x 400-mg capsules); (2) prednisolone and placebo (lactose, indistinguishable); (3) aciclovir and placebo; and (4) placebo and placebo. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was recovery of facial function assessed by the House-Brackmann scale. Secondary outcomes included health status, pain, self-perceived appearance and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Final outcomes were available for 496 patients, balanced for gender; mean age 44 years; initial facial paralysis moderate to severe. One half of patients initiated treatment within 24 hours of onset of symptoms, one-third within 24-48 hours and the remainder within 48-72 hours. Of the completed patients, 357 had recovered by 3 months and 80 at 9 months, leaving 59 with a residual deficit. There were significant differences in complete recovery at 3 months between the prednisolone comparison groups (83.0% for prednisolone, 63.6% for no prednisolone, a difference of + 19.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI): + 11.7% to + 27.1%, p < 0.001). The number needed to treat (NNT) in order to achieve one additional complete recovery was 6 (95% CI: 4 to 9). There was no significant difference between the aciclovir comparison groups (71.2% for aciclovir and 75.7% for no aciclovir). Nine-month assessments of patients recovered were 94.4% for prednisolone compared with 81.6% for no prednisolone, a difference of + 12.8% (95% CI: + 7.2% to + 18.4%, p < 0.001); the NNT was 8 (95% CI: 6 to 14). Proportions recovered at 9 months were 85.4% for aciclovir and 90.8% for no aciclovir, a difference of -5.3%. There was no significant prednisolone-aciclovir interaction at 3 months or at 9 months. Outcome differences by individual treatment (the four-arm model) showed significant differences. At 3 months the recovery rate was 86.3% in the prednisolone treatment group, 79.7% in the aciclovir-prednisolone group, 64.7% in the placebo group and 62.5% in the aciclovir group. At 9 months the recovery rates were respectively 96.1%, 92.7%, 85.3% and 78.1%. The increase in recovery rate conferred by the addition of prednisolone (both for prednisolone over placebo and for aciclovir-prednisolone over aciclovir) is highly statistically significant (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in secondary measures apart from Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) at 9 months in those treated with prednisolone. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided robust evidence to support the early use of oral prednisolone in Bell's palsy as an effective treatment which may be considered cost-effective. Treatment with aciclovir, either alone or with steroids, had no effect on outcome.

Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. METHOD: Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). CONCLUSION: The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.

Do the Y-set and double-bag systems reduce the incidence of CAPD peritonitis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Peritonitis is the most frequent serious complication of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). It has a major influence on the number of patients switching from CAPD to haemodialysis and has probably restricted the wider acceptance and uptake of CAPD as an alternative mode of dialysis. This systematic review sought to determine if modifications of the transfer set (Y-set or double-bag systems) used in CAPD exchanges are associated with a reduction in peritonitis and an improvement in other relevant outcomes. METHODS: Based on a comprehensive search strategy, we undertook a systematic review of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing double-bag and/or Y-set CAPD exchange systems with standard systems, or comparing double-bag with Y-set systems, in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with CAPD. Only published data were used. Data were abstracted by a single investigator onto a standard form and subsequently entered into Review Manager 4.0.4. Its statistical package, Metaview 3.1, calculated an odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and a (weighted) mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Twelve eligible trials with a total of 991 randomized patients were identified. In trials comparing either the Y-set or double-bag systems with the standard systems, significantly fewer patients (133/363 vs 158/263; OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.46) experienced peritonitis and the number of patient-months on CAPD per episode of peritonitis was consistently greater. When the double-bag systems were compared with the Y-set systems significantly fewer patients experienced peritonitis (44/154 vs 66/138; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.71) and the number of patient-months on CAPD per episode of peritonitis was also greater. CONCLUSIONS: Double-bag systems should be the preferred exchange systems in CAPD.