Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Healozone for the treatment of occlusal pit/fissure caries and root caries.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone® (CurOzone USA Inc., Ontario, Canada) for the management of pit and fissure caries, and root caries. The complete HealOzone procedure involves the direct application of ozone gas to the caries lesion on the tooth surface, the use of a remineralising solution immediately after application of ozone and the supply of a ‘patient kit’, which consists of toothpaste, oral rinse and oral spray all containing fluoride. Data sources: Electronic databases up to May 2004 (except Conference Papers Index, which were searched up to May 2002). Review methods: A systematic review of the effectiveness of HealOzone for the management of tooth decay was carried out. A systematic review of existing economic evaluations of ozone for dental caries was also planned but no suitable studies were identified. The economic evaluation included in the industry submission was critically appraised and summarised. A Markov model was constructed to explore possible cost-effectiveness aspects of HealOzone in addition to current management of dental caries. Results: Five full-text reports and five studies published as abstracts met the inclusion criteria. The five full-text reports consisted of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of HealOzone for the management of primary root caries and two doctoral theses of three unpublished randomised trials assessing the use of HealOzone for the management of occlusal caries. Of the abstracts, four assessed the effects of HealOzone for the management of occlusal caries and one the effects of HealOzone for the management of root caries. Overall, the quality of the studies was modest, with many important methodological aspects not reported (e.g. concealment of allocation, blinding procedures, compliance of patients with home treatment). In particular, there were some concerns about the choice of statistical analyses. In most of the full-text studies analyses were undertaken at lesion level, ignoring the clustering of lesions within patients. The nature of the methodological concerns was sufficient to raise doubts about the validity of the included studies’ findings. A quantitative synthesis of results was deemed inappropriate. On the whole, there is not enough evidence from published RCTs on which to judge the effectiveness of ozone for the management of both occlusal and root caries. The perspective adopted for the study was that of the NHS and Personal Social Services. The analysis, carried out over a 5-year period, indicated that treatment using current management plus HealOzone cost more than current management alone for non-cavitated pit and fissure caries (£40.49 versus £24.78), but cost less for non-cavitated root caries (£14.63 versus £21.45). Given the limitations of the calculations these figures should be regarded as illustrative, not definitive. It was not possible to measure health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, due to uncertainties around the evidence of clinical effectiveness, and to the fact that the adverse events avoided are transient (e.g. pain from injection of local anaesthetic, fear of the drill). One-way sensitivity analysis was applied to the model. However, owing to the limitations of the economic analysis, this should be regarded as merely speculative. For non-cavitated pit and fissure caries, the HealOzone option was always more expensive than current management when the probability of cure using the HealOzone option was 70% or lower. For non-cavitated root caries the costs of the HealOzone comparator were lower than those of current management only when cure rates from HealOzone were at least 80%. The costs of current management were higher than those of the HealOzone option when the cure rate for current management was 40% or lower. One-way sensitivity analysis was also performed using similar NHS Statement of Dental Remuneration codes to those that are used in the industry submission. This did not alter the results for non-cavitated pit fissure caries as the discounted net present value of current management remained lower than that of the HealOzone comparator (£22.65 versus £33.39). Conclusions: Any treatment that preserves teeth and avoids fillings is welcome. However, the current evidence base for HealOzone is insufficient to conclude that it is a cost-effective addition to the management and treatment of occlusal and root caries. To make a decision on whether HealOzone is a cost-effective alternative to current preventive methods for the management of dental caries, further research into its clinical effectiveness is required. Independent RCTs of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone for the management of occlusal caries and root caries need to be properly conducted with adequate design, outcome measures and methods for statistical analyses

Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone® for the treatment of occlusal pit/fissure caries and root caries

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone® (CurOzone USA Inc., Ontario, Canada) for the management of pit and fissure caries, and root caries. The complete HealOzone procedure involves the direct application of ozone gas to the caries lesion on the tooth surface, the use of a remineralising solution immediately after application of ozone and the supply of a ‘patient kit’, which consists of toothpaste, oral rinse and oral spray all containing fluoride. Data sources: Electronic databases up to May 2004 (except Conference Papers Index, which were searched up to May 2002). Review methods: A systematic review of the effectiveness of HealOzone for the management of tooth decay was carried out. A systematic review of existing economic evaluations of ozone for dental caries was also planned but no suitable studies were identified. The economic evaluation included in the industry submission was critically appraised and summarised. A Markov model was constructed to explore possible cost-effectiveness aspects of HealOzone in addition to current management of dental caries. Results: Five full-text reports and five studies published as abstracts met the inclusion criteria. The five full-text reports consisted of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of HealOzone for the management of primary root caries and two doctoral theses of three unpublished randomised trials assessing the use of HealOzone for the management of occlusal caries. Of the abstracts, four assessed the effects of HealOzone for the management of occlusal caries and one the effects of HealOzone for the management of root caries. Overall, the quality of the studies was modest, with many important methodological aspects not reported (e.g. concealment of allocation, blinding procedures, compliance of patients with home treatment). In particular, there were some concerns about the choice of statistical analyses. In most of the full-text studies analyses were undertaken at lesion level, ignoring the clustering of lesions within patients. The nature of the methodological concerns was sufficient to raise doubts about the validity of the included studies’ findings. A quantitative synthesis of results was deemed inappropriate. On the whole, there is not enough evidence from published RCTs on which to judge the effectiveness of ozone for the management of both occlusal and root caries. The perspective adopted for the study was that of the NHS and Personal Social Services. The analysis, carried out over a 5-year period, indicated that treatment using current management plus HealOzone cost more than current management alone for non-cavitated pit and fissure caries (£40.49 versus £24.78), but cost less for non-cavitated root caries (£14.63 versus £21.45). Given the limitations of the calculations these figures should be regarded as illustrative, not definitive. It was not possible to measure health benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, due to uncertainties around the evidence of clinical effectiveness, and to the fact that the adverse events avoided are transient (e.g. pain from injection of local anaesthetic, fear of the drill). One-way sensitivity analysis was applied to the model. However, owing to the limitations of the economic analysis, this should be regarded as merely speculative. For non-cavitated pit and fissure caries, the HealOzone option was always more expensive than current management when the probability of cure using the HealOzone option was 70% or lower. For non-cavitated root caries the costs of the HealOzone comparator were lower than those of current management only when cure rates from HealOzone were at least 80%. The costs of current management were higher than those of the HealOzone option when the cure rate for current management was 40% or lower. One-way sensitivity analysis was also performed using similar NHS Statement of Dental Remuneration codes to those that are used in the industry submission. This did not alter the results for non-cavitated pit fissure caries as the discounted net present value of current management remained lower than that of the HealOzone comparator (£22.65 versus £33.39). Conclusions: Any treatment that preserves teeth and avoids fillings is welcome. However, the current evidence base for HealOzone is insufficient to conclude that it is a cost-effective addition to the management and treatment of occlusal and root caries. To make a decision on whether HealOzone is a cost-effective alternative to current preventive methods for the management of dental caries, further research into its clinical effectiveness is required. Independent RCTs of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone for the management of occlusal caries and root caries need to be properly conducted with adequate design, outcome measures and methods for statistical analyses

Systematic review of the effectiveness of preventing and treating Staphylococcus aureus carriage in reducing peritoneal catheter-related infections

Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (1) alternative strategies for the prevention of Staphylococcus aureus carriage in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and (2) alternative strategies for the eradication of S. aureus carriage in patients on PD. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005 (MEDLINE Extra up to 6 January 2006). Review methods: Electronic searches were undertaken to identify published and unpublished reports of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of preventing and treating S. aureus carriage on peritoneal catheterrelated infections. The quality of the included studies was assessed and data synthesised. Where data were not sufficient for formal meta-analysis, a qualitative narrative review looking for consistency between studies was performed. Results: Twenty-two relevant trials were found. These fell into several groups: the first split is between prophylactic trials, aiming to prevent carriage, and trials which aimed to eradicate carriage in those who already had it; the second split is between antiseptics and antibiotics; and the third split is between those that included patients having the catheter inserted before dialysis started and people already on dialysis. Many of the trials were small or short-term. The quality was often not good by today’s standards. The body of evidence suggested a reduction in exit-site infections, but this did not seem to lead to a significant reduction in peritonitis, although to some extent this reflected insufficient power in the studies and a low incidence of peritonitis in them. The costs of interventions to prevent or treat S. aureus carriage are relatively modest. For example, the annual cost of antibiotic treatment of S. aureus carriage per identified carrier of S. aureus was estimated at £179 (£73 screening and £106 cost of antibiotic). However, without better data on the effectiveness of the interventions, it is not clear whether such costs are offset by the cost of treating infections and averting changes from peritoneal dialysis to haemodialysis. Although treatment is not expensive, the lack of convincing evidence of clinical effectiveness made cost-effectiveness analysis unrewarding at present. However, consideration was given to the factors needed in a hypothetical model describing patient pathways from methods to prevent S. aureus carriage, its detection and treatment and the detection and treatment of the consequences of S. aureus (e.g. catheter infections and peritonitis). Had data been available, the model would have compared the costeffectiveness of alternative interventions from the perspective of the UK NHS, but as such it helped identify what future research would be needed to fill the gaps. Conclusions: The importance of peritonitis isnot in doubt. It is the main cause of people having to switch from peritoneal dialysis to haemodialysis, which then leads to reduced quality of life for patients and increased costs to the NHS. Unfortunately, the present evidence base for the prevention of peritonitis is disappointing; it suggests that the interventions reduce exit-site infections, but not peritonitis, although this may be due to trials being in too small numbers for too short periods. Trials are needed with larger numbers of patients for longer durations.No peer reviewPublisher PD

Effect of multivitamin and multimineral supplementation on cognitive function in men and women aged 65 years and over : a randomised controlled trial

Background: Observational studies have frequently reported an association between cognitive function and nutrition in later life but randomised trials of B vitamins and antioxidant supplements have mostly found no beneficial effect. We examined the effect of daily supplementation with 11 vitamins and 5 minerals on cognitive function in older adults to assess the possibility that this could help to prevent cognitive decline. Methods: The study was carried out as part of a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial of micronutrient supplementation based in six primary care health centres in North East Scotland. 910 men and women aged 65 years and over living in the community were recruited and randomised: 456 to active treatment and 454 to placebo. The active treatment consisted of a single tablet containing eleven vitamins and five minerals in amounts ranging from 50–210 % of the UK Reference Nutrient Intake or matching placebo tablet taken daily for 12 months. Digit span forward and verbal fluency tests, which assess immediate memory and executive functioning respectively, were conducted at the start and end of the intervention period. Risk of micronutrient deficiency at baseline was assessed by a simple risk questionnaire. Results: For digit span forward there was no evidence of an effect of supplements in all participants or in sub-groups defined by age or risk of deficiency. For verbal fluency there was no evidence of a beneficial effect in the whole study population but there was weak evidence for a beneficial effect of supplementation in the two pre-specified subgroups: in those aged 75 years and over (n 290; mean difference between supplemented and placebo groups 2.8 (95% CI -0.6, 6.2) units) and in those at increased risk of micronutrient deficiency assessed by the risk questionnaire (n 260; mean difference between supplemented and placebo groups 2.5 (95% CI -1.0, 6.1) units). Conclusion: The results provide no evidence for a beneficial effect of daily multivitamin and multimineral supplements on these domains of cognitive function in community-living people over 65 years. However, the possibility of beneficial effects in older people and those at greater risk of nutritional deficiency deserves further attention.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones : the TISU non-inferiority RCT

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the patients who participated in the TISU trial.We also thank Stanley Coutts (patient representative) and Charles Clark (patient representative and co-applicant) for their contribution to the design of the participant-facing documents (patient information sheet and questionnaires); Sharon Wren for her secretarial support and data management; previous data co-ordinators, Jessica Wood and Margery Heath, for their data and trial management support; the CHaRT programming team led by Gladys McPherson (to 2016) and Mark Forrest (2016–present); other staff within CHaRT and the HSRU for their assistance with the trial (Cynthia Fraser); members of the PMG for their ongoing advice and support of the trial, plus the independent members of the TSC and DMC; and the staff at the recruitment sites who facilitated the recruitment, treatment and follow-up of trial participants (all listed below); and, finally, we would like to thank the National Institute for Health Research and the Health Technology Assessment programme for funding the TISU trial. 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. 26, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background Two commonly performed surgical interventions are available for severe (grade II–IV) haemorrhoids; traditional excisional surgery and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Uncertainty exists as to which is most eff ective. The eTHoS trial was designed to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-eff ectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared with traditional excisional surgery. Methods The eTHoS trial was a large, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial done in adult participants (aged 18 years or older) referred to hospital for surgical treatment for grade II–IV haemorrhoids. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either traditional excisional surgery or stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Randomisation was minimised according to baseline EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 level score (EQ-5D-3L), haemorrhoid grade, sex, and centre with an automated system to stapled haemorrhoidopexy or traditional excisional surgery. The primary outcome was area under the quality of life curve (AUC) measured with the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, assessed according to the randomised groups. The primary outcome measure was analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80061723. Findings Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 1, 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 388 to receive traditional excisional surgery). Stapled haemorrhoidopexy was less painful than traditional excisional surgery in the short term and surgical complication rates were similar between groups. The EQ-5D-3L AUC score was higher in the traditional excisional surgery group than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group over 24 months; mean diff erence –0·073 (95% CI –0·140 to –0·006; p=0·0342). EQ-5D-3L was higher for stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the fi rst 6 weeks after surgery, the traditional excisional surgery group had signifi cantly better quality of life scores than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group. 24 (7%) of 338 participants who received stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 33 (9%) of 352 participants who received traditional excisional surgery had serious adverse events. Interpretation As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, traditional excisional surgery should be considered over stapled haemorrhoidopexy as the surgical treatment of choice

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy to traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Current interventions for haemorrhoidal disease include traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH) and stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) surgery. However, uncertainty remains as to how they compare from a clinical, quality of life (QoL) and economic perspective. The study is therefore designed to determine whether SH is more effective and more cost-effective, compared with TH. Methods/Design: eTHoS (either Traditional Haemorrhoidectomy or Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy for Haemorrhoidal Disease) is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Currently, 29 secondary care centres are open to recruitment. Patients, aged 18 year or older, with circumferential haemorrhoids grade II to IV, are eligible to take part. The primary clinical and economic outcomes are QoL profile (area under the curve derived from the EuroQol Group’s 5 Dimension Health Status Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at all assessment points) and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) based on the responses to the EQ-5D at 24 months. The secondary outcomes include a comparison of the SF-36 scores, pain and symptoms sub-domains, disease recurrence, complication rates and direct and indirect costs to the National Health Service (NHS). A sample size of n =338 per group has been calculated to provide 90% power to detect a difference in the mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.25 standard deviations derived from EQ-5D score measurements, with a two-sided significance level of 5%. Allowing for non-response, 400 participants will be randomised per group. Randomisation will utilise a minimisation algorithm that incorporates centre, grade of haemorrhoidal disease, baseline EQ-5D score and gender. Blinding of participants and outcome assessors is not attempted. Discussion: This is one of the largest trials of its kind. In the United Kingdom alone, 29,000 operations for haemorrhoidal disease are done annually. The trial is therefore designed to give robust evidence on which clinicians and health service managers can base management decisions and, more importantly, patients can make informed choices. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80061723 (assigned 8 March 2010

Cost−utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults

Objectives: To assess the cost‐effectiveness, resource use implications, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) and cost per QALY of care pathways starting with either extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) or with ureteroscopic retrieval (ureteroscopy [URS]) for the management of ureteric stones. Patients and Methods: Data on quality of life and resource use for 613 patients, collected prospectively in the Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 92289221), were used to assess the cost‐effectiveness of two care pathways, SWL and URS. A health provider (UK National Health Service) perspective was adopted to estimate the costs of the interventions and subsequent resource use. Quality‐of‐life data were calculated using a generic instrument, the EuroQol EQ‐5D‐3L. Results are expressed as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The mean QALY difference (SWL vs URS) was −0.021 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.033 to −0.010) and the mean cost difference was −£809 (95% CI −£1061 to −£551). The QALY difference translated into approximately 10 more healthy days over the 6‐month period for the patients on the URS care pathway. The probabaility that SWL is cost‐effective is 79% at a society's willingness to pay (WTP) threshold for 1 QALY of £30,000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20,000. Conclusion: The SWL pathway results in lower QALYs than URS but costs less. The incremental cost per QALY is £39 118 cost saving per QALY lost, with a 79% probability that SWL would be considered cost‐effective at a WTP threshold for 1 QALY of £30 000 and 98% at a WTP threshold of £20 000. Decision‐makers need to determine if costs saved justify the loss in QALYs

Developing a preference-based glaucoma utility index using a discrete choice experiment

Purpose. To estimate a utility-based glaucoma health outcome measure, known as the Glaucoma Utility Index.Methods. Based on focus group studies, involving people with glaucoma, existing profile measures relevant to glaucoma were modified and a six-dimensional profile instrument was developed. Dimensions were: central and near vision; lighting and glare; mobility; activities of daily living; eye discomfort and other effects. Each dimension was assigned four levels (no difficulty; some difficulty; quite a lot of difficulty; and severe difficulty). The discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach was employed to move from this profile instrument to a preference-based utility measure. Experimental design techniques were used to derive a sample of health states for which preferences were elicited using the DCE. Four hundred and seventy-three people with glaucoma received the choice questionnaire.Results. The regression analysis was based on 286 consistent responses to the DCE. The regression coefficients for three of the dimensions ("central and near vision," "mobility," and "activities of daily living") moved as expected. Moving from "no difficulty" to "severe difficulty" for central and near vision resulted in the most loss of utility, followed by activities of daily living and mobility. Systemic ("other effects") and local side effects were considered the least important. Utility weights were related to self-reported glaucoma state. Utility estimates moved in line with generic measures of health outcome.Conclusions. This study developed a preference-based utility measure (Glaucoma Utility Index) using the DCE approach. The index, estimated on the basis of 286 respondents, demonstrated both theoretical and convergent validity with other generic health outcome measures and measures of glaucoma severity. Further research investigating preferences by clinically defined glaucoma health status is indicated. Methodological research should focus on alternative methods of scaling for use within a generic Quality Adjusted Life Year framework.</p