Comparative efficacy of newer hypnotic drugs for the short-term management of insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis,

Objectives To compare the clinical effectiveness of zaleplon, zolpidem or zopiclone (Z-drugs) with either benzodiazepines licensed and approved for use in the UK for the short-term management of insomnia (diazepam, loprazolam, lorazepam, lormetazepam, nitrazepam, temazepam) or with each other. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index/Web of Science were searched from 1966 to March 2003 and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of included studies and a number of psychopharmacology journals. Randomized controlled trials comparing either benzodiazepines with the Z-drugs or any two of the Z-drugs in patients with insomnia were included. Outcome measures included: sleep onset latency, total sleep duration, number of awakenings, quality of sleep, adverse events, tolerance, rebound insomnia and daytime alertness. Results and conclusions Twenty four eligible studies were identified with a total study population of 3909 (17 studies comparing a Z-drug with a benzodiazepine and 7 comparing a Z-drug). Insufficient or inappropriately reported data meant that meta-analysis was possible only for a small number of outcomes. There are few clear, consistent differences between the drugs. Some evidence suggests that zaleplon gives shorter sleep latency but shorter duration of sleep than zolpidem, reflecting the pharmacological profiles of the drugs

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of automated tests for cognitive impairment

Objective The aim of this review is to determine whether automated computerised tests accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment. Methods Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Institute for Scientific Information, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) were searched from January 2005 to August 2015 to identify papers for inclusion. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of automated computerised tests for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia against a reference standard were included. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias. Results Sixteen studies assessing 11 diagnostic tools for MCI and early dementia were included. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease and response to treatment. The overall quality of the studies was good. However, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that statistical analysis was not possible. Conclusion Some tests have shown promising results for identifying MCI and early dementia. However, concerns over small sample sizes, lack of replicability of studies, and lack of evidence available make it difficult to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing, monitoring progression, and treatment response for MCI and early dementia. Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem

Association of Food and Nonalcoholic Beverage Marketing With Children and Adolescents’ Eating Behaviors and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance There is widespread interest in the effect of food marketing on children; however, the comprehensive global evidence reviews are now dated. Objective To quantify the association of food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing with behavioral and health outcomes in children and adolescents to inform updated World Health Organization guidelines. Data Sources Twenty-two databases were searched (including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library) with a publication date limit from January 2009 through March 2020. Study Selection Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines were followed. Inclusion criteria were primary studies assessing the association of food marketing with specified outcomes in children and adolescents (aged 0-19 years). Exclusion criteria were qualitative studies or those on advertising of infant formula. Of 31 063 articles identified, 96 articles were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review, and 80 articles in the meta-analysis (19 372 participants). Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses; meta-regressions, sensitivity analyses, and P curve analyses were also performed. Where appropriate, pooling was conducted using combining P values and vote counting by direction of effect. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to judge certainty of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures Critical outcomes were intake, choice, preference, and purchasing. Important outcomes were purchase requests, dental caries, body weight, and diet-related noncommunicable diseases. Results Participants totaled 19 372 from 80 included articles. Food marketing was associated with significant increases in intake (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35; P Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Onlin