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

Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background The efficacy and safety of mesh/graft in surgery for anterior or posterior pelvic organ prolapse is uncertain. Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of mesh/graft for anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery. Search strategy Electronic databases and conference proceedings were searched, experts and manufacturers contacted and reference lists of retrieved papers scanned. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative studies, registries, case series involving at least 50 women, and RCTs published as conference abstracts from 2005 onwards. Data collection and analysis One reviewer screened titles/abstracts, undertook data extraction, and assessed study quality. Data analysis was conducted for three subgroups: anterior, posterior, and anterior and/or posterior repair (not reported separately). Results Forty-nine studies involving 4569 women treated with mesh/graft were included. Study quality was generally high. Median follow up was 13 months (range 1 to 51). In anterior repair, there was short-term evidence that mesh/graft (any type) significantly reduced objective prolapse recurrence rates compared with no mesh/graft (relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.72). Non-absorbable synthetic mesh had a significantly lower objective prolapse recurrence rate (8.8%, 48/548) than absorbable synthetic mesh (23.1%, 63/273) and biological graft (17.9%, 186/1041), but a higher erosion rate (10.2%, 68/666) than synthetic mesh (0.7%, 1/147) and biological graft (6.0%, 35/581). There was insufficient information to compare any of the other outcomes regardless of prolapse type. Conclusion Evidence for most outcomes was too sparse to provide meaningful conclusions. Rigorous long-term RCTs are required to determine the comparative efficacy of using mesh/graft.The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme

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

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, in different patient groups, of the use of 64-slice or higher computed tomography (CT) angiography, instead of invasive coronary angiography (CA), for diagnosing people with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and assessing people with known CAD. Data sources: Electronic databases were searched from 2002 to December 2006. Review methods: Included studies were tabulated and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values calculated. Meta-analysis models were fitted using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves. Summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios for each model were reported as a median and 95% credible interval (CrI). Searches were also carried out for studies on the cost-effectiveness of 64-slice CT in the assessment of CAD. Results: The diagnostic accuracy and prognostic studies enrolled over 2500 and 1700 people, respectively. The overall quality of the studies was reasonably good. In the pooled estimates, 64-slice CT angiography was highly sensitive (99%, 95% CrI 97 to 99%) for patientbased detection of significant CAD (defined as 50% or more stenosis), while across studies the negative predictive value (NPV) was very high (median 100%, range 86 to 100%). In segment-level analysis compared with patient-based detection, sensitivity was lower (90%, 95% CrI 85 to 94%, versus 99%, 95% CrI 97 to 99%) and specificity higher (97%, 95% CrI 95 to 98%, versus 89%, 95% CrI 83 to 94%), while across studies the median NPV was similar (99%, range 95 to 100%, versus 100%, range 86 to 100%). At individual coronary artery level the pooled estimates for sensitivity ranged from 85% for the left circumflex (LCX) artery to 95% for the left main artery, specificity ranged from 96% for both the left anterior descending (LAD) artery and LCX to 100% for the left main artery, while across studies the positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 81% for the LCX to 100% for the left main artery and NPV was very high, ranging from 98% for the LAD (range 95 to 100%), LCX (range 93 to 100%) and right coronary artery (RCA) (range 94 to 100%) to 100% for the left main artery. The pooled estimates for bypass graft analysis were 99% (95% CrI 95 to 100%) sensitivity, 96% (95% CrI 86 to 99%) specificity, with median PPV and NPV values across studies of 93% (range 90 to 95%) and 99% (range 98 to 100%), respectively. This compares with, for stent analysis, a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% CrI 68 to 97%), specificity 94% (95% CrI 83 to 98%), and median PPV and NPV values across studies of 77% (range 33 to 100%) and 96% (range 71 to 100%), respectively. Sixty-four-slice CT is almost as good as invasive CA in terms of detecting true positives. However, it is somewhat poorer in its rate of false positives. It seems likely that diagnostic strategies involving 64-slice CT will still require invasive CA for CT test positives, partly to identify CT false positives, but also because CA provides other information that CT currently does not, notably details of insertion site and distal run-off for possible coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). The high sensitivity of 64-slice CT avoids the costs of unnecessary CA in those referred for investigation but who do not have CAD. Given the possible, although small, associated death rate, avoiding these unnecessary CAs through the use of 64-slice CT may also confer a small immediate survival advantage. This in itself may be sufficient to outweigh the very marginally inferior rates of detection of true positives by strategies involving 64-slice CT. The avoidance of unnecessary CA through the use of 64-slice CT also appears likely to result in overall cost savings in the diagnostic pathway. Only if both the cost of CA is relatively low and the prevalence of CAD in the presenting population is relatively high (so that most patients will go on to CA) will the use of 64-slice CT be likely to result in a higher overall diagnostic cost per patient. Conclusions: The main value of 64-slice CT may at present be to rule out significant CAD. It is unlikely to replace CA in assessment for revascularisation of patients, particularly as angiography and angioplasty are often done on the same occasion. Further research is needed into the marginal advantages and costs of 256-slice machines compared with 64-sliceCT, the usefulness of 64-slice CT in people with suspected acute coronary syndrome, the potential of multislice computed tomography to examine plaque morphology, the role of CT in identifying patients suitable for CABG, and the concerns raised about repetitive use, or use of 64-slice or higher CT angiography in younger individuals or women of childbearing age.The Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates

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

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic modelling of minimal incision total hip replacement approaches in the management of arthritic disease of the hip

Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimal incision approaches to total hip replacement (THR) for arthritis of the hip. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched from 1966 to 2007. Relevant websites were also examined and experts in the field were consulted. Review methods: Studies of minimal (one or two) incision THR compared with standard THR were assessed for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness. A systematic review of economic evaluations comparing a minimal incision approach to standard THR was also performed and the estimates from the systematic review of clinical effectiveness were incorporated into an economic model. Utilities data were sourced to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Due to lack of data, no economic analysis was conducted for the two mini-incision surgical method. Results: Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 17 non-randomised comparative studies, six case series and one registry were found to be useful for the comparison of single mini-incision THR with standard THR. One RCT compared two mini-incision THR with standard THR, and two RCTs, five non-randomised comparative studies and two case series compared two mini-incision with single mini-incision THR. The RCTs were of moderate quality. Most had fewer than 200 patients and had a follow-up period of less than 1 year. The single mini-incision THR may have some perioperative advantages, e.g. blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) –57.71 ml, p £30,000) if recovery was 1.5 weeks faster. A threshold analysis around risk of revision showed, using the same cost per QALY threshold, mini-incision THR would have to have no more than a 7.5% increase in revisions compared with standard THR for it to be no longer considered cost-effective (one more revision for every 200 procedures performed). Further sensitivity analysis involved relaxing assumptions of equal long-term outcomes where possible. and broadly similar results to the base-case analysis were found in this and further sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Compared with standard THR, minimal incision THR has small perioperative advantages in terms of blood loss and operation time. It may offer a shorter hospital stay and quicker recovery. It appears to have a similar procedure cost to standard THR, but evidence on its longer term performance is very limited. Further long-term follow-up data on costs and outcomes including analysis of subgroups of interest to the NHS would strengthen the current economic evaluation.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 Directorates.Peer reviewedPublisher PD