Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic idiopathic (immune) thrombocytopenic purpura : A Single Technology Appraisal

Evidence Review Group (ERG) final report for the National Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellencePublisher PD

64-slice computed tomography angiography in the diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease : systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To assess whether 64-slice computed tomography (CT) angiography might replace some coronary angiography (CA) for diagnosis and assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and scanned reference lists of included studies. Eligible studies compared 64-slice CT with a reference standard of CA in adults with suspected/known CAD, reporting sensitivity and specificity or true and false positives and negatives. Data were pooled using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. Results Forty studies were included; 28 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analyses, all using a cutoff of ≥ 50% stenosis to define significant CAD. In patient-based detection (n=1286) 64-slice CT pooled sensitivity was 99% (95% credible interval (CrI) 97 to 99%), specificity 89% (95% CrI 83 to 94%), median positive predictive value (PPV) across studies 93% (range 64 to 100%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (range 86 to 100%). In segment-based detection (n=14,199) 64-slice CT pooled sensitivity was 90% (95% CrI 85 to 94%), specificity 97% (95% CrI 95 to 98%), median positive predictive value (PPV) across studies 76% (range 44 to 93%) and negative predictive value (NPV) 99% (range 95 to 100%). Conclusions 64-slice CT is highly sensitive for patient-based detection of CAD and has high NPV. An ability to rule out significant CAD means that it may have a role in the assessment of chest pain, particularly when the diagnosis remains uncertain despite clinical evaluation and simple non-invasive testing.UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 06/15/01). The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.Department of Health, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedAuthor versio

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 clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM) compared with conventional clinical assessment and other methods of monitoring cardiovascular function. Data sources: Electronic databases and relevant websites from 1990 to May 2007 were searched. Review methods: This review was based on a systematic review conducted by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), supplemented by evidence from any additional studies identified. Comparator interventions for effectiveness were standard care, pulmonary artery catheters (PACs), pulse contour analysis monitoring and lithium or thermodilution cardiac monitoring. Data were extracted on mortality, length of stay overall and in critical care, complications and quality of life. The economic assessment evaluated strategies involving ODM compared with standard care, PACs, pulse contour analysis monitoring and lithium or thermodilution cardiac monitoring. Results: The AHRQ report contained eight RCTs and was judged to be of high quality overall. Four comparisons were reported: ODM plus central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment during surgery; ODM plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment during surgery; ODM plus conventional assessment vs conventional assessment during surgery; and ODM plus CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment postoperatively. Five studies compared ODM plus CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment with CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment during surgery. There were fewer deaths [Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–0.96], fewer major complications (Peto OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.31), fewer total complications (fixed-effects OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26–0.71) and shorter length of stay (pooled estimate not presented, 95% CI –2.21 to –0.57) in the ODM group. The results of the meta analysis of mortality should be treated with caution owing to the low number of events and low overall number of patients in the combined totals. Three studies compared ODM plus conventional assessment with conventional assessment during surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (fixed-effects OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.23–2.77). Length of hospital stay was shorter in all three studies in the ODM group. Two studies compared ODM plus CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment in critically ill patients. The patient groups were quite different (cardiac surgery and major trauma) and neither study, nor a meta-analysis, showed a statistically significant difference in mortality (fixed-effects OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41–1.70). Fewer patients in the ODM group experienced complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.81) and both studies reported a statistically significant shorter median length of hospital stay in that group. No economic evaluations that met the inclusion criteria were identified from the existing literature so a series of balance sheets was constructed. The results show that ODM strategies are likely to be cost-effective. Conclusions: More formal economic evaluation would allow better use of the available data. All identified studies were conducted in unconscious patients. However, further research is needed to evaluate new ODM probes that may be tolerated by awake patients. Given the paucity of the existing economic evidence base, any further primary research should include an economic evaluation or should provide data suitable for use in an economic model.The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit are both core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

So many filters, so little time : the development of a search filter appraisal checklist

Objectives: The authors developed a tool to assess the quality of search filters designed to retrieve records for studies with specific research designs (e.g., diagnostic studies). Methods: The UK InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG), a group of experienced health care information specialists, reviewed the literature to evaluate existing search filter appraisal tools and determined that existing tools were inadequate for their needs. The group held consensus meetings to develop a new filter appraisal tool consisting of a search filter appraisal checklist and a structured abstract. ISSG members tested the final checklist using three published search filters. Results: The detailed ISSG Search Filter Appraisal Checklist captures relevance criteria and methods used to develop and test search filters. The checklist includes categorical and descriptive responses and is accompanied by a structured abstract that provides a summary of key quality features of a filter. Discussion: The checklist is a comprehensive appraisal tool that can assist health sciences librarians and others in choosing search filters. The checklist reports filter design methods and search performance measures, such as sensitivity and precision. The checklist can also aid filter developers by indicating information on core methods that should be reported to help assess filter suitability. The generalizability of the checklist for non-methods filters remains to be explored.The work of InterTASC members, including the ISSG, is funded through the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programm

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma : a systematic review and economic evaluation

Objectives: To assess whether open angle glaucoma (OAG) screening meets the UK National Screening Committee criteria, to compare screening strategies with case finding, to estimate test parameters, to model estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness, and to identify areas for future research. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005. Review methods: Screening strategies were developed by wide consultation. Markov submodels were developed to represent screening strategies. Parameter estimates were determined by systematic reviews of epidemiology, economic evaluations of screening, and effectiveness (test accuracy, screening and treatment). Tailored highly sensitive electronic searches were undertaken. Results: Most potential screening tests reviewed had an estimated specificity of 85% or higher. No test was clearly most accurate, with only a few, heterogeneous studies for each test. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified. Based on two treatment RCTs, early treatment reduces the risk of progression. Extrapolating from this, and assuming accelerated progression with advancing disease severity, without treatment the mean time to blindness in at least one eye was approximately 23 years, compared to 35 years with treatment. Prevalence would have to be about 3–4% in 40 year olds with a screening interval of 10 years to approach costeffectiveness. It is predicted that screening might be cost-effective in a 50-year-old cohort at a prevalence of 4% with a 10-year screening interval. General population screening at any age, thus, appears not to be cost-effective. Selective screening of groups with higher prevalence (family history, black ethnicity) might be worthwhile, although this would only cover 6% of the population. Extension to include other at-risk cohorts (e.g. myopia and diabetes) would include 37% of the general population, but the prevalence is then too low for screening to be considered cost-effective. Screening using a test with initial automated classification followed by assessment by a specialised optometrist, for test positives, was more cost-effective than initial specialised optometric assessment. The cost-effectiveness of the screening programme was highly sensitive to the perspective on costs (NHS or societal). In the base-case model, the NHS costs of visual impairment were estimated as £669. If annual societal costs were £8800, then screening might be considered cost-effective for a 40-year-old cohort with 1% OAG prevalence assuming a willingness to pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of lesser importance were changes to estimates of attendance for sight tests, incidence of OAG, rate of progression and utility values for each stage of OAG severity. Cost-effectiveness was not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of screening tests within the ranges observed. However, a highly specific test is required to reduce large numbers of false-positive referrals. The findings that population screening is unlikely to be cost-effective are based on an economic model whose parameter estimates have considerable uncertainty. In particular, if rate of progression and/or costs of visual impairment are higher than estimated then screening could be cost-effective. Conclusions: While population screening is not costeffective, the targeted screening of high-risk groups may be. Procedures for identifying those at risk, for quality assuring the programme, as well as adequate service provision for those screened positive would all be needed. Glaucoma detection can be improved by increasing attendance for eye examination, and improving the performance of current testing by either refining practice or adding in a technology-based first assessment, the latter being the more cost-effective option. This has implications for any future organisational changes in community eye-care services. Further research should aim to develop and provide quality data to populate the economic model, by conducting a feasibility study of interventions to improve detection, by obtaining further data on costs of blindness, risk of progression and health outcomes, and by conducting an RCT of interventions to improve the uptake of glaucoma testing.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Infants with esophageal atresia and right aortic arch: Characteristics and outcomes from the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium

Purpose Right sided aortic arch (RAA) is a rare anatomic finding in infants with esophageal atresia with or without tracheoesophageal fistula (EA/TEF). In the presence of RAA, significant controversy exists regarding optimal side for thoracotomy in repair of the EA/TEF. The purpose of this study was to characterize the incidence, demographics, surgical approach, and outcomes of patients with RAA and EA/TEF. Methods A multi-institutional, IRB approved, retrospective cohort study of infants with EA/TEF treated at 11 children's hospitals in the United States over a 5-year period (2009 to 2014) was performed. All patients had a minimum of one-year follow-up. Results In a cohort of 396 infants with esophageal atresia, 20 (5%) had RAA, with 18 having EA with a distal TEF and 2 with pure EA. Compared to infants with left sided arch (LAA), RAA infants had a lower median birth weight, (1.96 kg (IQR 1.54–2.65) vs. 2.57 kg (2.00–3.03), p = 0.01), earlier gestational age (34.5 weeks (IQR 32–37) vs. 37 weeks (35–39), p = 0.01), and a higher incidence of congenital heart disease (90% vs. 32%, p  0.29). Conclusion RAA in infants with EA/TEF is rare with an incidence of 5%. Compared to infants with EA/TEF and LAA, infants with EA/TEF and RAA are more severely ill with lower birth weight and higher rates of prematurity and complex congenital heart disease. In neonates with RAA, surgical repair of the EA/TEF is technically feasible via thoracotomy from either chest. A higher incidence of anastomotic strictures may occur with a right-sided approach

Changing the Paradigm for Management of Pediatric Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax: A Simple Aspiration Test Predicts Need for Operation

Purpose Chest tube (CT) management for pediatric primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is associated with long hospital stays and high recurrence rates. To streamline management, we explored simple aspiration as a test to predict need for surgery. Methods A multi-institution, prospective pilot study of patients with first presentation for PSP at 9 children’s hospitals was performed. Aspiration was performed through a pigtail catheter, followed by 6 h observation with CT clamped. If pneumothorax recurred during observation, the aspiration test failed and subsequent management was per surgeon discretion. Results Thirty-three patients were managed with simple aspiration. Aspiration was successful in 16 of 33 (48%), while 17 (52%) failed the aspiration test and required hospitalization. Twelve who failed aspiration underwent CT management, of which 10 (83%) failed CT management owing to either persistent air leak requiring VATS or subsequent PSP recurrence. Recurrence rate was significantly greater in the group that failed aspiration compared to the group that passed aspiration [10/12 (83%) vs 7/16 (44%), respectively, P = 0.028]. Conclusion Simple aspiration test upon presentation with PSP predicts chest tube failure with 83% positive predictive value. We recommend changing the PSP management algorithm to include an initial simple aspiration test, and if that fails, proceed directly to VATS