Immunocap® ISAC and microtest for multiplex allergen testing in people with difficult to manage allergic disease: A systematic review and cost analysis

__Background__ Allergy is a form of immune-mediated exaggerated sensitivity (hypersensitivity) to a substance that is either inhaled, swallowed, injected or comes into contact with the skin. Foreign substances that provoke allergies are called allergens. It has been claimed that multiplex allergen testing may help in diagnosing the cause of symptoms in patients with an unclear cause of allergy or who are allergic to more than one substance. __Objectives__ To evaluate multiplex allergen testing [devices that can measure the presence of multiple immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies in a patient’s blood at the same time], by assessing (1) clinical effectiveness (allergy symptoms, incidence of acute exacerbations, mortality, adverse events of testing and treatment, health-care presentations or admissions, health-related quality of life); (2) effects on treatment (diet, immunotherapy medications, other potential testing); (3) any additional diagnostic information provided by multiplex allergen testing; and (4) cost-effectiveness (cost of different assessment strategies). __Methods__ Fifteen databases were searched from 2005 to April 2015, including MEDLINE (via OvidSp), MEDLINE In-Process Citations, MEDLINE Daily Update, PubMed (National Library of Medicine), EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Science Citation Index (SCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), BIOSIS Previews, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA programme, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); supplementary searches of conference proceedings and trials registries were performed. Review methods followed published guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate published tools or a review-specific tool designed by the project team. Studies were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Owing to a lack of data on the clinical effectiveness of multiplex allergen testing, no long-term cost-effectiveness model was developed. A conceptual model structure was developed and cost analyses were performed to examine the short-term costs of various possible diagnostic pathways. __Results__ Fifteen studies were included in the review. The very limited available data indicated that the addition of multiplex allergen testing [ImmunoCAP® Immuno Solid-phase Allergen Chip (ISAC), Thermo Fisher Scientific/Phadi

Response to “Phrase truncation in PubMed searches”

Response to Shanman R. Phrase truncation in PubMed searches [letter to the editor]. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.252. Comment on Duffy S, de Kock S, Misso K, Noake C, Ross J, Stirk L. Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):309–12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.011

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review. Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid). Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review. Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews

Risk scores to guide referral decisions for people with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer in UK women and can be difficult to diagnose, particularly in the early stages. Risk-scoring can help to guide referral to specialist centres. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of risk scores to guide referral decisions for women with suspected ovarian cancer in secondary care. Methods: Twenty-one databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception to November 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. The meta-analysis using weighted averages and random-effects modelling was used to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The cost-effectiveness analysis considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with different risk-scoring methods, and subsequent care pathways. Modelling comprised a decision tree and a Markov model. The decision tree was used to model short-term outcomes and the Markov model was used to estimate the long-term costs and QALYs associated with treatment and progression. Results: Fifty-one diagnostic cohort studies were included in the systematic review. The Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) score did not offer any advantage over the Risk of Malignancy Index 1 (RMI 1). Patients with borderline tumours or non-ovarian primaries appeared to account for disproportionately high numbers of false-negative, low-risk ROMA scores. (Confidential information has been removed.) To achieve similar levels of sensitivity to the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) group’s simple ultrasound rules, a very low RMI 1 decision threshold (25) would be needed; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates for the RMI 1 at this threshold were 94.9% (95% CI 91.5% to 97.2%) and 51.1% (95% CI 47.0% to 55.2%), respectively. In the base-case analysis, RMI 1 (threshold of 250) was the least effective [16.926 life-years (LYs), 13.820 QALYs] and the second cheapest (£5669). The IOTA group’s simple ultrasound rules (inconclusive, assumed to be malignant) were the cheapest (£5667) and the second most effective [16.954 LYs, 13.841 QALYs], dominating RMI 1. The ADNEX model (threshold of 10%), costing £5699, was the most effective (16.957 LYs, 13.843 QALYs), and compared with the IOTA group’s simple ultrasound rules, resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £15,304 per QALY gained. At thresholds of up to £15,304 per QALY gained, the IOTA group’s simple ultrasound rules are cost-effective; the ADNEX model (threshold of 10%) is cost-effective for higher thresholds. Limitations: Information on the downstream clinical consequences of risk-scoring was limited. Conclusions: Both the ADNEX model and the IOTA group’s simple ultrasound rules may offer increased sensitivity relative to current practice (RMI 1); that is, more women with malignant tumours would be referred to a specialist multidisciplinary team, although more women with benign tumours would also be referred. The cost-effectiveness model supports prioritisation of sensitivity over specificity. Further research is needed on the clinical consequences of risk-scoring. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016053326. Funding details: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

A systematic review to assess adherence and persistence with statins

<p><b>Objective:</b> To identify and assess studies published over a 10 year period up to February 2016 which measure adherence or persistence with statins, to summarize their methods, strengths and weaknesses and to summarize evidence linking statin adherence/persistence with risk of cardiovascular events.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Electronic databases and abstracts from four major cardiovascular disease conferences were searched from January 2005 to February 2016. The study selection process was performed by two reviewers working independently. Studies were included if they reported data regarding patient adherence or persistence with statins in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia, using any type of study design or length of follow-up. One reviewer extracted the study data and assessed study quality, which was checked by a second reviewer independently. Given the heterogeneity between the included studies a narrative critique and summary is presented.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> We report on 84 real world studies which aimed to assess adherence or persistence with statins. The majority of studies concluded that good adherence/persistence was associated with reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality. In two studies high intensity statin regimens were associated with poorer patient adherence when compared to low intensity statins. Adherence and persistence with statin therapy also has an impact on hospitalization costs and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) related costs.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Adherence and persistence are associated with a reduction in CVD events and mortality. There was limited evidence to suggest that high intensity statin regimens are associated with poorer treatment adherence when compared to lower intensity regimens. Hence, more robust studies are required to establish this association. As recommended by the 2013 ACC/AHA, 2016 ESC and several other clinical guidelines, clinicians and pharmacy managers should regularly monitor statin therapy adherence.</p