Effects of weight loss interventions for adults who are obese on mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis

We thank Associate Professor Andrew Grey for helping to resolve discrepancies in data extraction and interpretation for cardiovascular events and cancer events. We thank trialists from 16 studies for clarifying or providing additional information for this review [Andrews 2011, Aveyard 2016, Bennett 2012, de Vos 2014, Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study 2009, Goodwin 2014, Green 2015, Horie 2016, Hunt (FFIT) 2014, Katula 2013, Li (Da Qing) 2014, Logue 2005, Ma 2013, O’Neil 2016, Rejeski (CLIP) 2011, Uusitupa 1993] and also others who provided information, but their trials were later found not to fulfil our inclusion criteria. Funding: The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer : a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

© 2013 The Authors. BJU International © 2013 BJU International.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Models of care for chronic kidney disease : a systematic review

Peer reviewedPostprin

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and/or colour duplex ultrasound for surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair : a systematic review and economic evaluation

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016036475. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

NICE guidance : a comparative study of the introduction of the single technology appraisal process and comparison with guidance from Scottish Medicines Consortium

Objectives: To compare the timelines and recommendations of the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), in particular since the single technology assessment (STA) process was introduced in 2005. Design: Comparative study of drug appraisals published by NICE and SMC. Setting: NICE and SMC. Participants: All drugs appraised by SMC and NICE, from establishment of each organisation until August 2010, were included. Data were gathered from published reports on the NICE website, SMC annual reports and European Medicines Agency website. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcome was time from marketing authorisation until publication of first guidance. The final outcome for each drug was documented. Drug appraisals by NICE (before and after the introduction of the STA process) and SMC were compared. Results: NICE and SMC appraised 140 drugs, 415 were appraised by SMC alone and 102 by NICE alone. NICE recommended, with or without restriction, 90% of drugs and SMC 80%. SMC published guidance more quickly than NICE (median 7.4 compared with 21.4 months). Overall, the STA process reduced the average time to publication compared with multiple technology assessments (median 16.1 compared with 22.8 months). However, for cancer medications, the STA process took longer than multiple technology assessment (25.2 compared with 20.0 months). Conclusions: Proportions of drugs recommended for NHS use by SMC and NICE are similar. SMC publishes guidance more quickly than NICE. The STA process has improved the time to publication but not for cancer drugs. The lengthier time for NICE guidance is partly due to measures to provide transparency and the widespread consultation during the NICE process

Screening for major diseases in community pharmacies : a systematic review

Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to assess the published evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of community pharmacy-based screening for major diseases. Method Studies published between January 1990 and August 2012 involving community pharmacy-based screening interventions, published in the English language, were identified from electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Key findings Fifty studies (one randomised controlled trial, two cluster randomised studies, five non-randomised comparative studies and 42 uncontrolled studies) were included. The quality of most of these was assessed as poor. Screening was mostly opportunistic and screening tools included questionnaires or risk assessment forms, medical equipment to make physiological measurements, or a combination of both. Few studies assessed the accuracy of pharmacy-based screening tools. More than half of the screening interventions included an element of patient education. The proportion of screened individuals, identified with disease risk factors or the disease itself, ranged from 4% to 89%. Only 10 studies reported any economic information. Where assessed, patient satisfaction with pharmacy-based screening was high, but individuals who screened positive often did not follow pharmacist advice to seek further medical help. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that screening for some diseases in community pharmacies is feasible. More studies are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacy-based screening with screening by other providers. Strategies to improve screening participants' adherence to pharmacist advice also need to be explored. This systematic review will help to inform future studies wishing to develop community pharmacy-based screening interventions

Systematic review of escalated imatinib doses compared with sunitinib or best supportive care, for the treatment of people with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours whose disease has progressed on the standard imatinib dose

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the effectiveness of imatinib at escalated doses of 600 mg/day or 800 mg/day for treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), following progression on imatinib at the 400 mg/day dose, compared with sunitinib and/or 'best supportive care'.METHODS: Electronic searches were undertaken to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies, and case series reporting outcome data on survival, quality of life or adverse events. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers and full text reports of potentially relevant studies assessed for inclusion. Included studies were quality assessed by two reviewers and data were extracted. Five studies reported data on the relevant population and were included.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Median overall survival for imatinib (800 mg/day) and sunitinib both were less than 2 years. Around 25% of patients required either an imatinib dose delay or reduction. Approximately one-third of patients receiving dose escalated imatinib (either dose) showed either response or stable disease. Amongst those responding to the escalated 800 mg/day dose, median progression-free survival was over 25 months. The statistical likelihood of response may depend on exon mutational status. There were few data and those that were available were potentially biased, due to their non-randomised nature. Further data are needed to justify international guideline recommendations on imatinib dose escalation.CONCLUSION: A prospective audit of management and outcomes for unresectable GIST patients treated with dose escalation upon progression at 400 mg/day may be appropriate as an RCT may be unfeasible.</p

Denosumab for treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours : systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Aim: To evaluate the evidence for denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumours and, using a network meta-analysis, indirectly compare denosumab with bisphosphonates and best supportive care. Data sources: MEDLINE (1948 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), Cochrane Library (all sections) (issue 1, 2011) and Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (1970 to May 2011) and additional meeting abstracts (2010 and 2011) were searched. Study eligibility, participants and interventions: Only randomised controlled trials assessing denosumab, bisphosphonates or best supportive care in patients with bone metastases from any solid tumour were included. Synthesis: Direct evidence comparing denosumab and zoledronic acid was assessed for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other solid tumours. Denosumab was compared with pamidronate and best supportive care through a network meta-analysis for each tumour type. The primary outcomes were time to first skeletal related event (SRE) and time to first and subsequent SRE. Secondary outcomes were skeletal morbidity rate, pain, quality of life (QoL) and overall survival. Results: Denosumab was found to be more effective in delaying the time to first SRE and reducing the risk of first and subsequent SRE compared to zoledronic acid, placebo and pamidronate. In breast and prostate cancer, denosumab was effective in reducing skeletal morbidity rate compared with placebo. The lack of published data on pain and QoL meant that firm conclusions could not be made. Denosumab did not appear to have an affect on overall survival

Pharmacists providing prescribing advice and education to healthcare professionals in community, primary care and outpatient settings (Protocol)

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: Main objective To assess the eHect of pharmacists’ prescribing advice, compared to usual care or other forms of interventions, on healthcare professionals’ prescribing appropriateness, guideline adherence, and costs in community, primary care and hospital outpatient settings. Secondary objective To summarise the principal findings from economic evaluations of these interventions