Eleanor Kotas

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula compared with usual care for preterm infants: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND Respiratory problems are one of the most common causes of morbidity in preterm infants and may be treated with several modalities for respiratory support such as nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation. The heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To address the clinical effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care for preterm infants we systematically reviewed the evidence of HHHFNC with usual care following ventilation (the primary analysis) and with no prior ventilation (the secondary analysis). The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as the need for reintubation (primary analysis) or intubation (secondary analysis). We also aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of HHHFNC compared with usual care if evidence permitted. DATA SOURCES The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (2000 to 12 January 2015), EMBASE (2000 to 12 January 2015), The Cochrane Library (issue 1, 2015), ISI Web of Science (2000 to 12 January 2015), PubMed (1 March 2014 to 12 January 2015) and seven trial and research registers. Bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. REVIEW METHODS Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the review. Full-text copies were assessed independently. Data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. Summary statistics were extracted for each outcome and, when possible, data were pooled. A meta-analysis was only conducted for the primary analysis, using fixed-effects models. An economic evaluation was planned. RESULTS Clinical evidence was derived from seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs): four RCTs for the primary analysis and three RCTs for the secondary analysis. Meta-analysis found that only for nasal trauma leading to a change of treatment was there a statistically significant difference, favouring HHHFNC over NCPAP [risk ratio (RR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.42]. For the following outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between arms: treatment failure (reintubation < 7 days; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.09), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.17), death (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.44), pneumothorax (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.12), intraventricular haemorrhage (grade ≥ 3; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.15), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.14), apnoea (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57) and acidosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.58). With no evidence to support the superiority of HHHFNC over NCPAP, a cost-minimisation analysis was undertaken, the results suggesting HHHFNC to be less costly than NCPAP. However, this finding is sensitive to the lifespan of equipment and the cost differential of consumables. LIMITATIONS There is a lack of published RCTs of relatively large-sized populations comparing HHHFNC with usual care; this is particularly true for preterm infants who had received no prior ventilation. CONCLUSIONS There is a lack of convincing evidence suggesting that HHHFNC is superior or inferior to usual care, in particular NCPAP. There is also uncertainty regarding whether or not HHHFNC can be considered cost-effective. Further evidence comparing HHHFNC with usual care is required. STUDY REGISTRATION This review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015015978. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE’s 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG’s review of the company’s evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG’s main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG’s amendments to the company’s cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company’s base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company’s base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000–£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

EMA and NICE appraisal processes for cancer drugs : current status and uncertainties

The Evidence Review Group members that contributed to this editorial are funded by the UK NIHR HTA Programme. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the UK Department of Health and the NIHR.

A systematic review of barriers and enablers to South Asian women's attendance for asymptomatic screening of breast and cervical cancers in emigrant countries.

Objectives The aim of this review was to identify the cultural, social, structural and behavioural factors that influence asymptomatic breast and cervical cancer screening attendance in South Asian populations, in order to improve uptake and propose priorities for further research. Design A systematic review of the literature for inductive, comparative, prospective and intervention studies. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE/In-Process, Web of Science, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, CDSR, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES from database inception to 23 January 2018. The review included studies on the cultural, social, structural and behavioural factors that influence asymptomatic breast and cervical cancer screening attendance and cervical smear testing (Papanicolaou test) in South Asian populations and those published in the English language. The framework analysis method was used and themes were drawn out following the thematic analysis method. Settings Asymptomatic breast or cervical screening. Participants South Asian women, including Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bhutanese, Maldivian and Nepali populations. Results 51 included studies were published between 1991 and 2018. Sample sizes ranged from 25 to 38 733 and participants had a mean age of 18 to 83 years. Our review showed that South Asian women generally had lower screening rates than host country women. South Asian women had poorer knowledge of cancer and cancer prevention and experienced more barriers to screening. Cultural practices and assumptions influenced understandings of cancer and prevention, emphasising the importance of host country cultures and healthcare systems. Conclusions High-quality research on screening attendance is required using prospective designs, where objectively validated attendance is predicted from cultural understandings, beliefs, norms and practices, thus informing policy on targeting relevant public health messages to the South Asian communities about screening for cancer. PROSPERO registration number CSD 42015025284.

Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.