Differing patterns in thermal injury incidence and hospitalisations among 0–4 year old children from England

Objective: To describe patterns in thermal injury incidence and hospitalisations by age, gender, calendar year and socioeconomic status among 0–4 year olds in England for the period 1998–2013. Participants: 708,050 children with linked primary care and hospitalisation data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), respectively. Analysis: Incidence rates of all thermal injuries (identified in CPRD and/or HES), hospitalised thermal injuries, and serious thermal injuries (hospitalised for ≥72 h). Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), estimated using Poisson regression. Results: Incidence rates of all thermal injuries, hospitalised thermal injuries, and serious thermal injuries were 59.5 per 10,000 person-years (95%CI 58.4–60.6), 11.3 (10.8–11.8) and 2.15 (1.95–2.37), respectively. Socioeconomic gradients, between the most and least deprived quintiles, were steepest for serious thermal injuries (IRR 3.17, 95%CI 2.53–3.96). Incidence of all thermal injuries (IRR 0.64, 95%CI 0.58–0.70) and serious thermal injuries (IRR 0.44, 95%CI 0.33–0.59) reduced between 1998/9 and 2012/13. Incidence rates of hospitalised thermal injuries did not significantly change over time. Conclusion: Incidence of all thermal injuries and those hospitalised for ≥72 h reduced over time. Steep socioeconomic gradients support continued targeting of preventative interventions to those living in the most deprived areas

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Researc

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care