Health state utilities of patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background and Objectives New treatments and interventions are in development to address clinical needs in heart failure. To support decision making on reimbursement, cost-effectiveness analyses are frequently required. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and summarize heart failure utility values for use in economic evaluations. Methods Databases were searched for articles published until June 2019 that reported health utility values for patients with heart failure. Publications were reviewed with specific attention to study design; reported values were categorized according to the health states, ‘chronic heart failure’, ‘hospitalized’, and ‘other acute heart failure’. Interquartile limits (25th percentile ‘Q1’, 75th percentile ‘Q3’) were calculated for health states and heart failure subgroups where there were sufficient data. Results The systematic literature review identified 161 publications based on data from 142 studies. Utility values for chronic heart failure were reported by 128 publications; 39 publications published values for hospitalized and three for other acute heart failure. There was substantial heterogeneity in the specifics of the study populations, methods of elicitation, and summary statistics, which is reflected in the wide range of utility values reported. EQ-5D was the most used instrument; the interquartile limit for mean EQ-5D values for chronic heart failure was 0.64–0.72. Conclusions There is a wealth of published utility values for heart failure to support economic evaluations. Data are heterogenous owing to specificities of the study population and methodology of utility value elicitation and analysis. Choice of value(s) to support economic models must be carefully justified to ensure a robust economic analysis

Quality appraisal in systematic literature reviews of studies eliciting health state utility values: conceptual considerations

Background: The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. Objective: This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context. Methods: A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. Results: The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions—reporting, relevance and methodological quality—and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs. Conclusions: Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs

DElayed COloRectal cancer care during COVID-19 Pandemic (DECOR-19): Global perspective from an international survey

Background: The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer care during the pandemic. Methods: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of colorectal cancer patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in colorectal cancer care. Respondents were divided into 2 comparator groups: (1) \u201cdelay\u201d group: colorectal cancer care affected by the pandemic and (2) \u201cno delay\u201d group: unaltered colorectal cancer practice. Results: A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the delay (745, 70.9%) and no delay (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units, units fully dedicated to coronavirus disease 2019 care, and personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology, and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the delay group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan, and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of colorectal cancer care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in coronavirus disease-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to coronavirus disease 2019 units were statistically associated with unaltered colorectal cancer care in the no delay group, while the geographic distribution was not. Conclusion: Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic colorectal cancer practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health care delivery systems, hospital's preparedness, resource availability, and local coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence rather than geographic factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize colorectal cancer care

Kidney and cardiovascular effects of canagliflozin according to age and sex: a post hoc analysis of the CREDENCE randomized clinical trial

Rationale & Objective: It is unclear whether the effect of canagliflozin on adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in those with diabetic kid-ney disease varies by age and sex. We assessed the effects of canagliflozin among age group categories and between sexes in the Canagli-flozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) study.Study Design: Secondary analysis of a random-ized controlled trial. Setting & Participants: Participants in the CREDENCE trial. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive canagliflozin 100 mg/d or placebo.Outcomes: Primary composite outcome of kid-ney failure, doubling of serum creatinine con-centration, or death due to kidney or cardiovascular disease. Prespecified secondary and safety outcomes were also analyzed. Out-comes were evaluated by age at baseline (_70 years) and sex in the intention-to-treat population using Cox regression models.Results: The mean age of the cohort was 63.0 & PLUSMN; 9.2 years, and 34% were female. Older age and female sex were independently associ-ated with a lower risk of the composite of adverse kidney outcomes. There was no evidence that the effect of canagliflozin on the primary outcome (acomposite of kidney failure, a doubling of serum creatinine concentration, or death from kidney or cardiovascular causes) differed between age groups (HRs, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.52-0.87], 0.63 [0.4 8-0.82], and 0.89 [0.61-1.29] for ages _70 years, respectively; P = 0.3 for interaction) or sexes (HRs, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.5 4-0.95] and 0.69 [0.56-0.8 4] in women and men, respectively; P = 0.8 for interaction). No differences in safety outcomes by age group or sex were observed.Limitations: This was a post hoc analysis with multiple comparisons.Conclusions: Canagliflozin consistently reduced the relative risk of kidney events in people with diabetic kidney disease in both sexes and across age subgroups. As a result of greater background risk, the absolute reduction in adverse kidney outcomes was greater in younger participants.Funding: This post hoc analysis of the CREDENCE trial was not funded. The CREDENCE study was sponsored by Janssen Research and Development and was conducted collaboratively by the sponsor, an academic-led steering committee, and an academic research organization, George Clinical.Trial Registration: The original CREDENCE trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02065791.Patholog

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension

BACKGROUND: Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clini​calTr​ials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69–1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33–1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05– 3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angio-tensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19. © 2022 The Authors