Lenalidomide with Rituximab for Previously Treated Follicular Lymphoma and Marginal Zone Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of lenalidomide (Revlimid®), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with rituximab (MabThera®), together referred to as R2, for the treatment of adults with treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included one relevant study, for the comparison of R2 versus rituximab monotherapy (R-mono): the AUGMENT trial. In addition, the company performed an unanchored indirect comparison of R2 versus rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) and rituximab combined with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CVP), using data for R2 from the AUGMENT trial and pooled data for R-CHOP/R-CVP from the Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN) database. During the STA process, the company provided an addendum containing evidence on only the FL population, in line with the marketing authorisation obtained at that time, which did not include MZL. The probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) presented by the company were £27,768 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, £41,602 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and £23,412 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. The ERG's concerns included the validity of the unanchored comparison, the unavailability of a state transition model to verify the outcomes of the partitioned survival model, substantial uncertainty in survival curves, and potential over-estimation of utility values. The revised ERG base case resulted in ICERs ranging from £16,874 to £44,888 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CHOP, from £23,135 to £59,810 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-CVP, and from £18,779 to £27,156 per QALY gained for R2 versus R-mono. Substantial uncertainty remained around these ranges. NICE recommended R2 within its marketing authorisation, as an option for previously treated FL (grade 1-3A) in adults, contingent on the company providing lenalidomide according to the commercial arrangement.

Pembrolizumab for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Merck Sharp & Dohme; MSD) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (RRcHL) who did not respond to treatment with brentuximab vedotin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. According to the NICE scope, pembrolizumab was compared with single or combination chemotherapy. Comparisons were undertaken in two populations: patients who did and did not receive prior autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT; populations 1 and 2, respectively). Despite it having been recommended by NICE in population 1 at the time the ERG received the company submission, nivolumab was not included as a comparator. No studies directly comparing pembrolizumab and its comparators were identified. One ongoing, single-arm study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-087) and one comparative observational study (Cheah et al., 2016) were used to inform the comparative effectiveness of pembrolizumab and standard of care (SoC), using indirect comparisons in both populations. Almost all analyses showed significant PFS and overall response rate benefits for pembrolizumab versus SoC, but due to being based on indirect comparison, were likely to contain systematic error. The economic evaluation therefore suffered from substantial uncertainty in any estimates of cost effectiveness. Furthermore, there was a lack of evidence on the uptake and timing of allogeneic stem cell transplant, and alternative assumptions had a significant impact on cost effectiveness. Immature survival data from KEYNOTE-087 exacerbated this issue and necessitated the use of alternative data sources for longer-term extrapolation of survival. Some issues identified in the company's analyses were amended by the ERG. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's second Appraisal Consultation Document response for pembrolizumab versus SoC (with a commercial access agreement) for populations 1 and 2 were £54,325 and £62,527 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. There was substantial uncertainty around these ICERs, especially in population 2. NICE did not recommend pembrolizumab as an option for treating RRcHL in population 1, but recommended pembrolizumab for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund in population 2.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Evolocumab and Other Therapies for the Management of Lipid Levels in Hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab substantially reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) when added to statin therapy in patients who need additional LDL-C reduction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials of lipid-lowering therapies from database inception through August 2016 (45 058 records retrieved). We found 69 trials of lipid-lowering therapies that enrolled patients requiring further LDL-C reduction while on maximally tolerated medium- or high-intensity statin, of which 15 could be relevant for inclusion in LDL-C reduction networks with evolocumab, alirocumab, ezetimibe, and placebo as treatment arms. PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduced LDL-C by 54% to 74% versus placebo and 26% to 46% versus ezetimibe. There were significant treatment differences for evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 versus placebo (-74.1%; 95% credible interval -79.81% to -68.58%), alirocumab 75 mg (-20.03%; 95% credible interval -27.32% to -12.96%), and alirocumab 150 mg (-13.63%; 95% credible interval -22.43% to -5.33%) at ≥12 weeks. Treatment differences were similar in direction and magnitude for PCSK9 inhibitor monthly dosing. Adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors and control. Rates of adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors versus placebo or ezetimibe. CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 inhibitors added to medium- to high-intensity statin therapy significantly reduce LDL-C in patients requiring further LDL-C reduction. The network meta-analysis showed a significant treatment difference in LDL-C reduction for evolocumab versus alirocumab.

Telephone-supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy: REEACT-2 large-scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundComputerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) for depression has the potential to be efficient therapy but engagement is poor in primary care trials.AimsWe tested the benefits of adding telephone support to cCBT.MethodWe compared telephone-facilitated cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 187) to minimally supported cCBT (MoodGYM) (n = 182) in a pragmatic randomised trial (trial registration: ISRCTN55310481). Outcomes were depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD)-7) and somatoform complaints (PHQ-15) at 4 and 12 months.ResultsUse of cCBT increased by a factor of between 1.5 and 2 with telephone facilitation. At 4 months PHQ-9 scores were 1.9 points lower (95% CI 0.5-3.3) for telephone-supported cCBT. At 12 months, the results were no longer statistically significant (0.9 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -0.5 to 2.3). There was improvement in anxiety scores and for somatic complaints.ConclusionsTelephone facilitation of cCBT improves engagement and expedites depression improvement. The effect was small to moderate and comparable with other low-intensity psychological interventions.

The second Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT-2) trial: does the provision of telephone support enhance the effectiveness of computer-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy? A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) is an efficient form of therapy potentially improving access to psychological care. Indirect evidence suggests that the uptake and effectiveness of cCBT can be increased if facilitated by telephone, but this is not routinely offered in the NHS. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone-facilitated free-to-use cCBT [e.g. MoodGYM (National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia)] with minimally supported cCBT. DESIGN: This study was a multisite, pragmatic, open, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a concurrent economic evaluation. SETTING: Participants were recruited from GP practices in Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield, Hull and the north-east of England. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were eligible to participate in the trial if they were adults with depression scoring ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised using a computer-generated random number sequence to receive minimally supported cCBT or telephone-facilitated cCBT. Participants continued with usual general practitioner care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported symptoms of depression, as assessed by the PHQ-9 at 4 months post randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 months and anxiety, somatoform complaints, health utility (as assessed by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire) and resource use at 4 and 12 months. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 182 participants were randomised to minimally supported cCBT and 187 participants to telephone-facilitated cCBT. There was a difference in the severity of depression at 4 and 12 months, with lower levels in the telephone-facilitated group. The odds of no longer being depressed (defined as a PHQ-9 score of < 10) at 4 months were twice as high in the telephone-facilitated cCBT group [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 3.42]. The benefit of telephone-facilitated cCBT was no longer significant at 12 months (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.71). At 4 months the between-group difference in PHQ-9 scores was 1.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 3.3). At 12 months the results still favoured telephone-facilitated cCBT but were no longer statistically significant, with a difference in PHQ-9 score of 0.9 (95% CI -0.5 to 2.3). When considering the whole follow-up period, telephone-facilitated cCBT was asssociated with significantly lower PHQ-9 scores than minimally supported cCBT (mean difference -1.41, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.17; p = 0.025). There was a significant improvement in anxiety scores over the trial period (between-group difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.1 to 2.3; p = 0.037). In the case of somatic complaints (assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-15), there was a borderline statistically significant difference over the trial period (between-group difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.0 to 1.8; p = 0.051). There were gains in quality-adjusted life-years at reduced cost when telephone facilitation was added to MoodGYM. However, the results were subject to uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed short-term benefits from the addition of telephone facilitation to cCBT. The effect was small to moderate and comparable with that of other primary care psychological interventions. Telephone facilitation should be considered when offering cCBT for depression. LIMITATIONS: Participants' depression was assessed with the PHQ-9, cCBT use was quite low and there was a slightly greater than anticipated loss to follow-up. FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS: Improve the acceptability of cCBT and its capacity to address coexisting disorders. Large-scale pragmatic trials of cCBT with bibliotherapy and telephone-based interventions are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55310481. 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. 20, No. 89. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. METHODS: A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.

Statistical analysis and reporting: common errors found during peer review and how to avoid them.

When performing statistical peer review for Swiss Medical Weekly papers there often appear to be common errors or recurring themes regarding the reporting of study designs, statistical analysis methods, results and their interpretation. In order to help authors with choosing and describing the most appropriate analysis methods and reporting their results, we have created a guide to the most common issues and how to avoid them. This guide will follow the recommended structure for original papers as provided in the guidelines for authors (http://blog.smw.ch/what-smw-has-to-offer/guidelines-for-authors/), and provide advice for each section. This paper is intended to provide an overview of statistical methods and tips for writing your paper; it is not a comprehensive review of all statistical methods. Guidance is provided about the choice of statistical methods for different situations and types of data, how to report the methods, present figures and tables, and how to correctly present and interpret the results.

Dose efficiency of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) increase red blood cell production in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). In Europe, short-acting ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, epoetin zeta, and epoetin theta) and a long-acting ESA (darbepoetin alfa) are available to treat CIA. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine potential dose efficiency associated with the use of different ESAs for the treatment of CIA according to European labeling. METHODS: A systematic review of ESA studies with starting doses according to European labeling was conducted according to published methodology. Measures of dose efficiency were defined as mean weekly doses to achieve target hemoglobin level or final dose and dose adjustments (dose increase, decrease, or withheld). Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched up to July 2012. Data were selected for analysis using an evidence hierarchy and quantitatively analyzed to assess statistical homogeneity. Where pooling of data was not appropriate, a narrative summary with descriptive statistics (medians and ranges) was reported. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies considered to represent the highest level of evidence were extracted and included in the analysis. The analysis showed a high degree of statistical heterogeneity, often precluding meta-analysis. The patients included in the analysis were representative of those encountered in clinical practice, and patient characteristics were similar between the short-acting and the darbepoetin alfa groups. Mean weekly doses appeared ~30% lower with darbepoetin alfa versus short-acting ESAs (median, 136.5 µg or 27,300 IU [range, 21,560-38,260 IU] vs 38,230 IU [range, 31,634-42,714 IU], respectively), resulting in a mean weekly dose ratio of 1:280. Darbepoetin alfa patients appeared to need fewer dose increases compared with short-acting ESAs (pooled, 0.75%; I(2) = 21% vs median 26.6% [range, 7.6%-44.6%]) and more dose decreases (median, 74% [range, 57%-75%] vs 22% [range, 2.8%-59%]). A similar percentage of darbepoetin alfa and short-acting ESA patients required a dose to be withheld (20% and 33% [2 studies] vs median 33.2% [range, 12.6%-51.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical heterogeneity between studies was high, although clinically the studies represented medical practice. Without randomized clinical trials directly comparing darbepoetin alfa and short-acting ESAs, these findings are tentative and future research is warranted. This review shows that good-quality, reliable data from head-to-head trials are lacking. The best available evidence comes from prospective ESA-arm data. Mean weekly doses, dose increases, and dose decreases suggest a dose efficiency for darbepoetin alfa compared with short-acting ESAs.

Hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy: a mechanistic approach to optimizing regression assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

OBJECTIVES: Neuroendocrine activation may be an important adjunctive mechanism for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) development. Controversy exists to as to whether LVH regression occurs due to blood pressure (BP) reduction alone or if adjunctive mechanisms play a role. We planned to test the hypothesis that for a similar BP reduction, LVH regression would be greater using a drug combination selected specifically to reduce neuroendocrine activity compared with one that did not. METHODS: Forty-two patients with hypertension and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) proven LVH were allocated to one of two equipotent antihypertensive regimens for 6 months. Treatments were chosen on the basis of opposing mechanistic actions on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS); one arm inhibitory (valsartan and moxonidine), the other neutral (bendroflumethiazide and amlodipine). The primary end point was absolute reduction in CMR-determined left ventricular mass (LVM). RESULTS: All BP indices were highly comparable at the start and end of the trial (P > 0.6 between groups). BP was reduced (always P < 0.0001) by 37/17  mmHg in the valsartan and moxonidine group and 38/19  mmHg in the bendroflumethiazide and amlodipine group. CMR quantified LVM was comparable between the two groups at baseline and decreased significantly in both treatment groups (P < 0.0001). Reduction in LVM was significantly greater in valsartan and moxonidine [-25.9  g; 95% confidence interval (CI) -31.6 to -20.2] compared with bendroflumethiazide and amlodipine (-18.3  g; -23.3 to -13.4) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The magnitude of LVH regression achieved by inhibiting the RAAS and SNS neuroendocrine pathways is greater than that produced by comparable BP reduction alone. This supports the hypothesis that neuroendocrine mechanisms are important in the regression of LVH.

Diffusion-weighted MRI determined cerebral embolic infarction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: assessment of predictive risk factors and the relationship to subsequent health status.

BACKGROUND: 'Silent' cerebral infarction and stroke are complications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). OBJECTIVE: To assess the occurrence of cerebral infarction, identify predictive risk factors and examine the impact on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Cerebral diffusion weighted MRI of 31 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing CoreValve TAVI was carried out. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and at 30 days by SF-12v2 and EQ5D questionnaires. RESULTS: New cerebral infarcts occurred in 24/31 patients (77%) and stroke in 2 (6%). Stroke was associated with a greater number and volume of cerebral infarcts. Age (r=0.37, p=0.042), severity of atheroma (arch and descending aorta; r=0.91, p<0.001, r=0.69, p=0.001, respectively) and catheterisation time (r=0.45, p=0.02) were predictors of the number of new cerebral infarcts. HRQoL improved overall: SF-12v2 physical component summary increased significantly (32.4±6.2 vs 36.5±7.2; p=0.03) with no significant change in mental component summary (43.5±11.7 vs. 43.1±14.3; p=0.85). The EQ5D score and Visual Analogue Scale showed no significant change (0.56±0.26 vs. 0.59±0.31; p=0.70, and 54.2±19 vs. 58.2±24; p=0.43). CONCLUSION: Multiple small cerebral infarcts occurred in 77% of patients with TAVI. The majority of infarcts were 'silent' with clinical stroke being associated with a both higher infarct number and volume. Increased age and the severity of aortic arch atheroma were independent risk factors for the development of new cerebral infarcts. Overall HRQoL improved and there was no association between the number of new cerebral infarcts and altered health status.

Relationship of dysglycemia to acute myocardial infarct size and cardiovascular outcome as determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes for normoglycemic patients suffering acute myocardial infarction (AMI) over the last decade have not been matched by similar improvements in mortality for diabetic patients despite similar levels of baseline risk and appropriate medical therapy. Two of the major determinants of poor outcome following AMI are infarct size and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. METHODS: Ninety-three patients with first AMI were studied. 22 patients had diabetes mellitus (DM) based on prior history or admission blood glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/l. 13 patients had dysglycemia (admission blood glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/l but < 11.1 mmol/l) and 58 patients had normoglycemia (admission blood glucose < 7.8 mmol/l). Patients underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging at index presentation and median follow-up of 11 months. Cine imaging assessed LV function and late gadolinium contrast-enhanced imaging was used to quantify infarct size. Clinical outcome data were collected at 18 months median follow-up. RESULTS: Patients with dysglycemia and DM had larger infarct sizes by CMR than normoglycemic patients; at baseline percentage LV scar (mean (SD)) was 23.0% (10.9), 25.6% (12.9) and 15.8% (10.3) respectively (p = 0.001), and at 11 months percentage LV scar was 17.6% (8.9), 19.1% (9.6) and 12.4% (7.8) (p = 0.017). Patients with dysglycemia and DM also had lower event-free survival at 18 months (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with dysglycemia or diabetes mellitus sustain larger infarct sizes than normoglycemic patients, as determined by CMR. This may, in part, account for their adverse prognosis following AMI.

Glycopeptide vs. non-glycopeptide antibiotics for prophylaxis of surgical site infections: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients receive prophylactic antibiotics against surgical site infections (SSIs) before or during many procedures. Glycopeptide antibiotics are effective against most strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but their wider use risks increasing resistance. Our objective was to review the evidence for clinical effectiveness that might help to determine whether there is a threshold of MRSA prevalence at which switching from non-glycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis might be justified. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized trials comparing a glycopeptide with an alternative antibiotic regimen for SSI prophylaxis in adults undergoing clean or clean-contaminated surgical procedures. The evidence was used to inform development of a decision-analytic model. We subsequently updated the review to May 2008. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified that provided evidence concerning clinical effectiveness. The studies were too heterogeneous clinically for meta-analysis. Only one of 12 trials found that glycopeptides reduced SSIs significantly at 30 days compared with non-glycopeptide antibiotics. Of the two trials that reported on MRSA infection, neither found a significant difference between glycopeptide and comparator drugs. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review did not find any evidence to support the use of glycopeptides in preference to other antibiotics for the prevention of MRSA infections and SSIs. The limitations of the evidence make it difficult to identify a threshold at which a switch from non-glycopeptide to glycopeptide prophylaxis should be recommended. Given the difficulties of addressing this issue through randomized trials, further research should focus on hospital infection control policies, MRSA screening, and the isolation and treatment of anyone infected with MRSA prior to surgery.

Change in serum lipids after acute coronary syndromes: secondary analysis of SPACE ROCKET study data and a comparative literature review.

BACKGROUND: It has long been an accepted belief that serum cholesterol significantly falls after myocardial infarction and that a return to pre-event levels takes approximately 3 months. The magnitude and clinical significance of this fall has recently been challenged. METHODS: In the Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events-Reduction Of Cholesterol to Key European Targets (SPACE ROCKET) trial, we measured serum lipids of individuals on day 1 and between days 2 and 4 after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Second, we performed a thorough literature review and compared all studies reporting data on absolute changes in lipids immediately after AMI, using weighted means. RESULTS: Of 1263 SPACE ROCKET participants, 128 had paired lipid measurements where both samples had been measured using identical methods at baseline and on days 2-4 after AMI. The mean lowering in total cholesterol between day 1 and day 2-4 was 0.71 mmol/L (95% CI 0.58-0.84; P < 0.0001) and in triglycerides was 0.10 mmol/L (-0.14-0.33; P = 0.405). A total of 25 papers showing absolute lipid changes post-AMI were identified. The combined data demonstrated a mean fall in total cholesterol of 9% to 11% from baseline over days 3-14 post-AMI, whereas for triglycerides, there was a rise of 18% from baseline to between day 9 and 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: After a secondary analysis of SPACE ROCKET data and a comparison of previously published data, we report a 10% fall in total cholesterol after AMI-a difference that is of high clinical significance. Consequently, measurement of serum lipids in patients with AMI should be performed within the first hours after presentation.