Diana Mendes

The Effectiveness of Interventions to Treat Severe Acute Malnutrition in Young Children: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) arises as a consequence of a sudden period of food shortage and is associated with loss of a persons body fat and wasting of their skeletal muscle. Many of those affected are already undernourished and are often susceptible to disease. Infants and young children are the most vulnerable as they require extra nutrition for growth and development, have comparatively limited energy reserves and depend on others. Undernutrition can have drastic and wide-ranging consequences for the childs development and survival in the short and long term. Despite efforts made to treat SAM through different interventions and programmes, it continues to cause unacceptably high levels of mortality and morbidity. Uncertainty remains as to the most effective methods to treat severe acute malnutrition in young children. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to treat infants and children aged < 5 years who have SAM. DATA SOURCES Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, CAB Abstracts Ovid, Bioline, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EconLit EBSCO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to 2010. Bibliographies of included articles and grey literature sources were also searched. The project expert advisory group was asked to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS Prior to the systematic review, a Delphi process involving international experts prioritised the research questions. Searches were conducted and two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Included studies were mapped to the research questions. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with tabulation of the results. RESULTS A total of 8954 records were screened, 224 full-text articles were retrieved, and 74 articles (describing 68 studies) met the inclusion criteria and were mapped. No evidence focused on treatment of children with SAM who were human immunodeficiency virus sero-positive, and no good-quality or adequately reported studies assessed treatments for SAM among infants < 6 months old. One randomised controlled trial investigated fluid resuscitation solutions for shock, with none adequately treating shock. Children with acute diarrhoea benefited from the use of hypo-osmolar oral rehydration solution (H-ORS) compared with the standard World Health Organization-oral rehydration solution (WHO-ORS). WHO-ORS was not significantly different from rehydration solution for malnutrition (ReSoMal), but the safety of ReSoMal was uncertain. A rice-based ORS was more beneficial than glucose-based ORSs, and provision of zinc plus a WHO-ORS had a favourable impact on diarrhoea and need for ORS. Comparisons of different diets in children with persistent diarrhoea produced conflicting findings. For treating infection, comparison of amoxicillin with ceftriaxone during inpatient therapy, and routine provision of antibiotics for 7 days versus no antibiotics during outpatient therapy of uncomplicated SAM, found that neither had a significant effect on recovery at the end of follow-up. No evidence mapped to the next three questions on factors that affect sustainability of programmes, long-term survival and readmission rates, the clinical effectiveness of management strategies for treating children with comorbidities such as tuberculosis and Helicobacter pylori infection and the factors that limit the full implementation of treatment programmes. Comparison of treatment for SAM in different settings showed that children receiving inpatient care appear to do as well as those in ambulatory or home settings on anthropometric measures and response time to treatment. Longer-term follow-up showed limited differences between the different settings. The majority of evidence on methods for correcting micronutrient deficiencies considered zinc supplements; however, trials were heterogeneous and a firm conclusion about zinc was not reached. There was limited evidence on either supplementary potassium or nicotinic acid (each produced some benefits), and nucleotides (not associated with benefits). Evidence was identified for four of the five remaining questions, but not assessed because of resource limitation. LIMITATIONS The systematic review focused on key questions prioritised through a Delphi study and, as a consequence, did not encompass all elements in the management of SAM. In focusing on evidence from controlled studies with the most rigorous designs that were published in the English language, the systematic review may have excluded other forms of evidence. The systematic review identified several limitations in the evidence base for assessing the effectiveness of interventions for treating young children with severe acute malnutrition, including a lack of studies assessing the different interventions; limited details of study methods used; short follow-up post intervention or discharge; and heterogeneity in participants, interventions, settings, and outcome measures affecting generalisability. CONCLUSIONS For many of the most highly ranked questions evidence was lacking or inconclusive. More research is needed on a range of topic areas concerning the treatment of infants and children with SAM. Further research is required on most aspects of the management of SAM in children < 5 years, including intravenous resuscitation regimens for shock, management of subgroups (e.g. infants < 6 months old, infants and children with SAM who are human immunodeficiency virus sero-positive) and on the use of antibiotics.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND Many deaths from cancer are caused by metastatic burden. Prognosis and survival rates vary, but survival beyond 5 years of patients with untreated metastatic disease in the liver is rare. Treatment for liver metastases has largely been surgical resection, but this is feasible in only approximately 20-30% of people. Non-surgical alternatives to treat some liver metastases can include various forms of ablative therapies and other targeted treatments. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the different ablative and minimally invasive therapies for treating liver metastases. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September 2011. Experts were consulted and bibliographies checked. REVIEW METHODS Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies and minimally invasive therapies used for people with liver metastases. Studies were any prospective study with sample size greater than 100 participants. A probabilistic model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies where data permitted. RESULTS The evidence assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative and other minimally invasive therapies was limited. Nine studies of ablative therapies were included in the review; each had methodological shortcomings and few had a comparator group. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) of microwave ablation versus surgical resection was identified and showed no improvement in outcomes compared with resection. In two prospective case series studies that investigated the use of laser ablation, mean survival ranged from 41 to 58 months. One cohort study compared radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection and five case series studies also investigated the use of radiofrequency ablation. Across these studies the median survival ranged from 44 to 52 months. Seven studies of minimally invasive therapies were included in the review. Two RCTs compared chemoembolisation with chemotherapy only. Overall survival was not compared between groups and methodological shortcomings mean that conclusions are difficult to make. Two case series studies of laser ablation following chemoembolisation were also included; however, these provide little evidence of the use of these technologies in combination. Three RCTs of radioembolisation were included. Significant improvements in tumour response and time to disease progression were demonstrated; however, benefits in terms of survival were equivocal. An exploratory survival model was developed using data from the review of clinical effectiveness. The model includes separate analyses of microwave ablation compared with surgery and radiofrequency ablation compared with surgery and one of radioembolisation in conjunction with hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy alone. Microwave ablation was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3664 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with microwave ablation being associated with reduced cost but also with poorer outcome than surgery. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases < 3 cm was associated with an ICER of -£266,767 per QALY gained, indicating that radiofrequency ablation dominates surgical resection. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases ≥ 3 cm resulted in poorer outcomes at lower costs and a resultant ICER of £2538 per QALY gained. Radioembolisation plus hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy was associated with an ICER of £37,303 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS There is currently limited high-quality research evidence upon which to base any firm decisions regarding ablative therapies for liver metastases. Further trials should compare ablative therapies with surgery, in particular. A RCT would provide the most appropriate design for undertaking any further evaluation and should include a full economic evaluation, but the group to be randomised needs careful selection. SOURCE OF FUNDING Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.