EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe : 2000-2015

Objective: Cost per quality-adjusted life year data are required for reimbursement decisions in many Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. EQ-5D is by far the most commonly used instrument to generate utility values in CEE. This study aims to systematically review the literature on EQ-5D from eight CEE countries. Methods: An electronic database search was performed up to July 1, 2015 to identify original EQ-5D studies from the countries of interest. We analysed the use of EQ-5D with respect to clinical areas, methodological rigor, population norms and value sets. Results: We identified 143 studies providing 152 country-specific results with a total sample size of 81,619: Austria (n=11), Bulgaria (n=6), Czech Republic (n=18), Hungary (n=47), Poland (n=51), Romania (n=2), Slovakia (n=3) and Slovenia (n=14). Cardiovascular (20%), neurologic (16%), musculoskeletal (15%) and endocrine/nutritional/metabolic diseases (14%) were the most frequently studied clinical areas. Overall 112 (78%) of the studies reported EQ VAS results and 86 (60%) EQ-5D index scores, of which 27 (31%) did not specify the applied tariff. Hungary, Poland and Slovenia have population norms. Poland and Slovenia also have a national value set. Conclusions: Increasing use of EQ-5D is observed throughout CEE. The spread of health technology assessment activities in countries seems to be reflected in the number of EQ-5D studies. However, improvement in informed use and methodological quality of reporting is needed. In jurisdictions where no national value set is available, in order to ensure comparability we recommend to apply the most frequently used UK tariff. Regional collaboration between CEE countries should be strengthened

Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies

Objectives: The purpose of this document is to make the output of the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography (IWG-IVOCT) Standardization and Validation available to medical and scientific communities, through a peer-reviewed publication, in the interest of improving the diagnosis and treatment of patients with atherosclerosis, including coronary artery disease. Background: Intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) is a catheter-based modality that acquires images at a resolution of ∼10 μm, enabling visualization of blood vessel wall microstructure in vivo at an unprecedented level of detail. IVOCT devices are now commercially available worldwide, there is an active user base, and the interest in using this technology is growing. Incorporation of IVOCT in research and daily clinical practice can be facilitated by the development of uniform terminology and consensus-based standards on use of the technology, interpretation of the images, and reporting of IVOCT results. Methods: The IWG-IVOCT, comprising more than 260 academic and industry members from Asia, Europe, and the United States, formed in 2008 and convened on the topic of IVOCT standardization through a series of 9 national and international meetings. Results: Knowledge and recommendations from this group on key areas within the IVOCT field were assembled to generate this consensus document, authored by the Writing Committee, composed of academicians who have participated in meetings and/or writing of the text. Conclusions: This document may be broadly used as a standard reference regarding the current state of the IVOCT imaging modality, intended for researchers and clinicians who use IVOCT and analyze IVOCT data

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P = 0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events