Maxine Bennett

Efficacy and cost of video-assisted thoracoscopic partial pleurectomy versus talc pleurodesis in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MesoVATS): an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND Malignant pleural mesothelioma incidence continues to rise, with few available evidence-based therapeutic options. Results of previous non-randomised studies suggested that video-assisted thoracoscopic partial pleurectomy (VAT-PP) might improve symptom control and survival. We aimed to compare efficacy in terms of overall survival, and cost, of VAT-PP and talc pleurodesis in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS We undertook an open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in patients aged 18 years or older with any subtype of confirmed or suspected mesothelioma with pleural effusion, recruited from 12 hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either VAT-PP or talc pleurodesis by computer-generated random numbers, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer risk category (high vs low). The primary outcome was overall survival at 1 year, analysed by intention to treat (all patients randomly assigned to a treatment group with a final diagnosis of mesothelioma). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00821860. FINDINGS Between Oct 24, 2003, and Jan 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 196 patients, of whom 175 (88 assigned to talc pleurodesis, 87 assigned to VAT-PP) had confirmed mesothelioma. Overall survival at 1 year was 52% (95% CI 41-62) in the VAT-PP group and 57% (46-66) in the talc pleurodesis group (hazard ratio 1·04 [95% CI 0·76-1·42]; p=0·81). Surgical complications were significantly more common after VAT-PP than after talc pleurodesis, occurring in 24 (31%) of 78 patients who completed VAT-PP versus ten (14%) of 73 patients who completed talc pleurodesis (p=0·019), as were respiratory complications (19 [24%] vs 11 [15%]; p=0·22) and air-leak beyond 10 days (five [6%] vs one [1%]; p=0·21), although not significantly so. Median hospital stay was longer at 7 days (IQR 5-11) in patients who received VAT-PP compared with 3 days (2-5) for those who received talc pleurodesis (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION VAT-PP is not recommended to improve overall survival in patients with pleural effusion due to malignant pleural mesothelioma, and talc pleurodesis might be preferable considering the fewer complications and shorter hospital stay associated with this treatment. FUNDING BUPA Foundation.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of oral mandibular advancement devices and continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea.

Summary Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness, impairs quality-of-life, and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment and mandibular advancement devices (MAD) have been shown to be effective in individual trials but their effectiveness particularly relative to disease severity is unclear. A MEDLINE, Embase and Science Citation Index search updating two systematic reviews to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing: MAD with conservative management (CM); MAD with CPAP; or CPAP with CM. Overall MAD and CPAP significantly improved apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) (MAD −9.3/hr (p < 0.001), CPAP −25.4 (p < 0.001)). In direct comparisons mean AHI and Epworth sleepiness scale score were lower (7.0/hr (p < 0.001) and 0.67 (p = 0.093) respectively) for CPAP. There were no CPAP vs. MAD trials in mild OSAH but in comparisons with CM, MAD and CPAP reduced ESS similarly (MAD 2.01 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.23 (p = 0.012). Both MAD and CPAP are clinically effective in the treatment of OSAH. Although CPAP has a greater treatment effect, MAD is an appropriate treatment for patients who are intolerant of CPAP and may be comparable to CPAP in mild disease.

A crossover randomised controlled trial of oral mandibular advancement devices for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO)

Rationale Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are used to treat obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical and cost-effectiveness in less severe disease. Objectives To compare clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a range of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAHS. Measurements and methods This open-label, randomised, controlled, crossover trial was undertaken at a UK sleep centre. Adults with Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) 5–<30/h and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score ≥9 underwent 6 weeks of treatment with three non-adjustable MADs: self-moulded (SleepPro 1; SP1); semi-bespoke (SleepPro 2; SP2); fully-bespoke MAD (bMAD); and 4 weeks no treatment. Primary outcome was AHI scored by a polysomnographer blinded to treatment. Secondary outcomes included ESS, quality of life, resource use and cost. Main results 90 patients were randomised and 83 were analysed. All devices reduced AHI compared with no treatment by 26% (95% CI 11% to 38%, p=0.001) for SP1, 33% (95% CI 24% to 41%) for SP2 and 36% (95% CI 24% to 45%, p<0.001) for bMAD. ESS was 1.51 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29, p<0.001, SP1) to 2.37 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.22, p<0.001, bMAD) lower than no treatment (p<0.001 for all). Compliance was lower for SP1, which was the least preferred treatment at trial exit. All devices were cost-effective compared with no treatment at a £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold. SP2 was the most cost-effective up to £39 800/QALY. Conclusions Non-adjustable MADs achieve clinically important improvements in mild to moderate OSAHS and are cost-effective. Of those trialled, the semi-bespoke MAD is an appropriate first choice. Trial registration number ISRCTN02309506.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessed by the CAMPHOR Questionnaire Predict Clinical Deterioration in Idiopathic Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

BACKGROUND The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) is a disease-specific assessment tool used for the evaluation and follow-up of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). We describe a novel use for this questionnaire in its potential to predict clinical deterioration (CD) in two patient cohorts with subtypes of PH, idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) during an 8-year period. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed CAMPHOR scores obtained at baseline and at follow-up visits in patients under the care of our unit over an 8-year period to assess CD and survival, as well as 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. RESULTS Using Cox regression, we demonstrated a significant predictive effect of CD from total CAMPHOR scores at study enrollment in IPAH and CTEPH (hazard ratios, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05] and 1.04 [95% CI, 1.02-1.06] per unit score increase, respectively), as well as from CAMPHOR subscales as independent predictors. This predictive effect is diluted after adjusting for the prognostic effect of 6MWD and NYHA class. Repeated CAMPHOR assessment over time appears not to add predictive value of CD to that obtained at diagnosis, although it still informs physicians of important changes in self-reported symptoms. CONCLUSIONS When emphasis is placed on the evaluation of patient perceptions, CAMPHOR may represent an alternative method of estimating the likelihood of CD.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised controlled Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea (TOMADO) and long-term economic analysis of oral devices and continuous positive airway pressure

BACKGROUND Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), impairs quality of life (QoL) and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment is clinically effective but undermined by intolerance, and its cost-effectiveness is borderline in milder cases. Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are another option, but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in milder disease. OBJECTIVES (1) Conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAH. (2) Update systematic reviews and an existing health economic decision model with data from the Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) and newly published results to better inform long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH. TOMADO A crossover RCT comparing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three MADs: self-moulded [SleepPro 1™ (SP1); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; semibespoke [SleepPro 2™ (SP2); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; and fully bespoke [bespoke MAD (bMAD); NHS Oral-Maxillofacial Laboratory, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge, UK] against no treatment, in 90 adults with mild to moderate OSAH. All devices improved primary outcome [apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI)] compared with no treatment: relative risk 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.89] for SP1; relative risk 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) for SP2; and relative risk 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.76) for bMAD (p < 0.001). Differences between MADs were not significant. Sleepiness [as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] was scored 1.51 [95% CI 0.73 to 2.29 (SP1)] to 2.37 [95% CI 1.53 to 3.22 (bMAD)] lower than no treatment (p < 0.001), with SP2 and bMAD significantly better than SP1. All MADs improved disease-specific QoL. Compliance was lower for SP1, which was unpopular at trial exit. At 4 weeks, all devices were cost-effective at £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with SP2 the best value below £39,800/QALY. META-ANALYSIS A MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index search updating two existing systematic reviews (one from November 2006 and the other from June 2008) to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing MAD with conservative management (CM), MADs with CPAP or CPAP with CM. MADs and CPAP significantly improved AHI [MAD -9.3/hour (p < 0.001); CPAP -25.4/hour (p < 0.001)]. Effect difference between CPAP and MADs was 7.0/hour (p < 0.001), favouring CPAP. No trials compared CPAP with MADs in mild OSAH. MAD and CPAP reduced the ESS score similarly [MAD 1.6 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.6 (p < 0.001)]. LONG-TERM COST-EFFECTIVENESS An existing model assessed lifetime cost-utility of MAD and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH, using the revised meta-analysis to update input values. The TOMADO provided utility estimates, mapping ESS score to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version for device cost-utility. Using SP2 as the standard device, MADs produced higher mean costs and mean QALYs than CM [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £6687/QALY]. From a willingness to pay (WTP) of £15,367/QALY, CPAP is cost-effective, although the likelihood of MADs (p = 0.48) and CPAP (p = 0.49) being cost-effective is very similar. Both were better than CM, but there was much uncertainty in the choice between CPAP and MAD (at a WTP £20,000/QALY, the probability of being the most cost-effective was 47% for MAD and 52% for CPAP). When SP2 lifespan increased to 18 months, the ICER for CPAP compared with MAD became £44,066. The ICER for SP1 compared with CM was £1552, and for bMAD compared with CM the ICER was £13,836. The ICER for CPAP compared with SP1 was £89,182, but CPAP produced lower mean costs and higher mean QALYs than bMAD. Differential compliance rates for CPAP reduces cost-effectiveness so MADs become less costly and more clinically effective with CPAP compliance 90% of SP2. CONCLUSIONS Mandibular advancement devices are clinically effective and cost-effective in mild to moderate OSAH. A semi-bespoke MAD is the appropriate first choice in most patients in the short term. Future work should explore whether or not adjustable MADs give additional clinical and cost benefits. Further data on longer-term cardiovascular risk and its risk factors would reduce uncertainty in the health economic model and improve precision of effectiveness estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN02309506. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

S1 TOMADO: A crossover randomised controlled trial of oral mandibular advancement devices for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea

Introduction Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), impairs quality of life (Qol), and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure therapy is effective but undermined by intolerance and cost effectiveness is borderline in milder cases. Mandibular Advancement Devices (MADs) are another treatment option but evidence is lacking regarding their effectiveness compared to no treatment in milder disease. This study compared clinical and cost effectiveness of a range of MADs and no treatment in these patients. Methods This 4-period, randomised, controlled, crossover trial was undertaken at a UK sleep centre. Adults with mild to moderate OSAH and EDS (Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) 5-<30/hour; Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (ESS) > = 9) underwent 6 weeks of treatment with three non-adjustable MADs: self-moulded (SP1); semi-bespoke (SP2); fully-bespoke (bMAD); and 4 weeks no treatment. Primary outcome was AHI scored by a polysomnographer blinded to treatment and analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included ESS and QoL. Cost effectiveness was evaluated using validated tools, treatment costs and healthcare usage. Results Ninety patients were recruited. Sixteen withdrew before trial end. Seven did not complete any treatment and were excluded from analyses. All devices reduced AHI against no treatment, by 26% (95%CI 11%, 38%, p = 0.001) for SP1 to 36% (95%CI 24%, 45%, p < 0.001) for bMAD. ESS was 1.51 (SP1) to 2.37 (bMAD) lower versus no treatment (p < 0.001 for all). Compliance was lower for SP1 which was unpopular at trial exit. All devices were cost-effective compared with no treatment at a willingness to pay (WTP) of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), based on mean costs and QALYs. SP2 was most cost-effective up to a WTP of £39,800/QALY after which, bMAD superseded it. Serious adverse events occurred in four patients (4%). Conclusions Mandibular Advancement Devices achieve clinically important improvements in mild to moderate OSAH syndrome and are cost effective. A semi-bespoke non-adjustable MAD would appear to be the appropriate first choice in most patients. Future work should explore whether adjustable MADs give additional clinical and cost benefits in this patient group. Funding NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, UK.