Steven Duffy

Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. DATA SOURCES Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. RESULTS A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.46 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

Psychosocial interventions for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder: systematic review of controlled trials.

BACKGROUND Pharmacological interventions alone do not provide sufficient benefit for some individuals with bipolar disorder. AIMS To determine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. METHOD A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials were conducted. RESULTS Cognitive-behavioural therapy or group psychoeducation may be effective for relapse prevention in stable individuals. Family therapy was no more or less effective than individual psychosocial therapy or crisis management. There is no evidence that care management or integrated group therapy is effective in the prevention of relapse. CONCLUSIONS Cognitive-behavioural therapy, group psychoeducation and possibly family therapy may be beneficial as adjuncts to pharmacological maintenance treatments.

Prescription of anti-influenza drugs for healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In publicly funded health systems with finite resources, management decisions are based on assessments of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence commissioned a systematic review to inform their 2009 update to guidance on the use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of influenza. We searched databases for studies of the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment of seasonal influenza. We present the results for healthy adults (ie, adults without known comorbidities) and people at-risk of influenza-related complications. There was an overall reduction in the median time to symptom alleviation in healthy adults by 0.57 days (95% CI -1.07 to -0.08; p=0.02; 2701 individuals) with zanamivir, and 0.55 days (95% CI -0.96 to -0.14; p=0.008; 1410 individuals) with oseltamivir. In those at risk, the median time to symptom alleviation was reduced by 0.98 days (95% CI -1.84 to -0.11; p=0.03; 1252 individuals) with zanamivir, and 0.74 days (95% CI -1.51 to 0.02; p=0.06; 1472 individuals) with oseltamivir. Little information was available on the incidence of complications. In view of the advantages and disadvantages of different management strategies for controlling seasonal influenza in healthy adults recommending the use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of people presenting with symptoms is unlikely to be the most appropriate course of action.

The use of measures of obesity in childhood for predicting obesity and the development of obesity-related diseases in adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND It is uncertain which simple measures of childhood obesity are best for predicting future obesity-related health problems and the persistence of obesity into adolescence and adulthood. OBJECTIVES To investigate the ability of simple measures, such as body mass index (BMI), to predict the persistence of obesity from childhood into adulthood and to predict obesity-related adult morbidities. To investigate how accurately simple measures diagnose obesity in children, and how acceptable these measures are to children, carers and health professionals. DATA SOURCES Multiple sources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from 2008 to 2013. METHODS Systematic reviews and a meta-analysis were carried out of large cohort studies on the association between childhood obesity and adult obesity; the association between childhood obesity and obesity-related morbidities in adulthood; and the diagnostic accuracy of simple childhood obesity measures. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and a modified version of the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. A systematic review and an elicitation exercise were conducted on the acceptability of the simple measures. RESULTS Thirty-seven studies (22 cohorts) were included in the review of prediction of adult morbidities. Twenty-three studies (16 cohorts) were included in the tracking review. All studies included BMI. There were very few studies of other measures. There was a strong positive association between high childhood BMI and adult obesity [odds ratio 5.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.50 to 6.02]. A positive association was found between high childhood BMI and adult coronary heart disease, diabetes and a range of cancers, but not stroke or breast cancer. The predictive accuracy of childhood BMI to predict any adult morbidity was very low, with most morbidities occurring in adults who were of healthy weight in childhood. Predictive accuracy of childhood obesity was moderate for predicting adult obesity, with a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 98%. Persistence of obesity from adolescence to adulthood was high. Thirty-four studies were included in the diagnostic accuracy review. Most of the studies used the least reliable reference standard (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry); only 24% of studies were of high quality. The sensitivity of BMI for diagnosing obesity and overweight varied considerably; specificity was less variable. Pooled sensitivity of BMI was 74% (95% CI 64.2% to 81.8%) and pooled specificity was 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 96.4%). The acceptability to children and their carers of BMI or other common simple measures was generally good. LIMITATIONS Little evidence was available regarding childhood measures other than BMI. No individual-level analysis could be performed. CONCLUSIONS Childhood BMI is not a good predictor of adult obesity or adult disease; the majority of obese adults were not obese as children and most obesity-related adult morbidity occurs in adults who had a healthy childhood weight. However, obesity (as measured using BMI) was found to persist from childhood to adulthood, with most obese adolescents also being obese in adulthood. BMI was found to be reasonably good for diagnosing obesity during childhood. There is no convincing evidence suggesting that any simple measure is better than BMI for diagnosing obesity in childhood or predicting adult obesity and morbidity. Further research on obesity measures other than BMI is needed to determine which is the best tool for diagnosing childhood obesity, and new cohort studies are needed to investigate the impact of contemporary childhood obesity on adult obesity and obesity-related morbidities. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005711. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Colour vision testing for diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE To determine the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of colour vision testing (CVT) to identify and monitor the progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR). DATA SOURCES Major electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to September 2008. REVIEW METHODS A systematic review of the evidence was carried out according to standard methods. An online survey of National Screening Programme for Diabetic Retinopathy (NSPDR) clinical leads and programme managers assessed the diagnostic tools used routinely by local centres and their views on future research priorities. A decision tree and Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental costs and effects of adding CVT to the current NSPDR. RESULTS In total, 25 studies on CVT met the inclusion criteria for the review, including 18 presenting 2 x 2 diagnostic accuracy data. The quality of studies and reporting was generally poor. Automated or computerised CVTs reported variable sensitivities (63-97%) and specificities (71-95%). One study reported good diagnostic accuracy estimates for computerised CVT plus retinal photography for detection of sight-threatening DR, but it included few cases of retinopathy in total. Results for pseudoisochromatic plates, anomaloscopes and colour arrangement tests were largely inadequate for DR screening, with Youden indices (sensitivity + specificity - 100%) close to zero. No studies were located that addressed patient preferences relating to CVT for DR. Retinal photography is universally employed as the primary method for retinal screening by centres responding to the online survey; none used CVT. The review of the economic evaluation literature found no previous studies describing the cost and effects of any type of CVT. Our economic evaluation suggested that adding CVT to the current national screening programme could be cost-effective if it adequately increases sensitivity and is relatively inexpensive. The deterministic base-case analysis indicated that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained may be 6364 pounds and 12,432 pounds for type 1 and type 2 diabetes respectively. However, probabilistic sensitivity analysis highlighted the substantial probability that CVT is not diagnostically accurate enough to be either an effective or a cost-effective addition to current screening methods. The results of the economic model should be treated with caution as the model is based on only one small study. CONCLUSIONS There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CVT alone, or in combination with retinal photography, as a method for screening for retinopathy in patients with diabetes. Better quality diagnostic accuracy studies directly comparing the incremental value of CVT in addition to retinal photography are needed before drawing conclusions on cost-effectiveness. The most frequently cited preference for future research was the use of optical coherence tomography for the detection of clinically significant macular oedema.

Alitretinoin for severe chronic hand eczema: a NICE single technology appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of alitretinoin (Basilea Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with severe chronic hand eczema (CHE), as part of the Institute’s single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE’s subsequent decisions.The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the manufacturer’s submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searched for relevant evidence and modified the manufacturer’s decision analytic model to examine the impact of altering some of the key assumptions.The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from a single-placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT) of daily treatment with alitretinoin for 12–24 weeks, with follow-up for a further 24 weeks, in patients with severe CHE unresponsive to topical corticosteroids. A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved ‘clear’ or ‘almost clear’ hands by week 24 with alitretinoin than those using placebo: 48% with alitretinoin 30mg (p < 0.001); 28% with alitretinoin 10 mg (p < 0.005); 17% with placebo. Most patients who responded remained in remission during the 24-week follow-up period. The most commonly reported adverse event was dose-dependent headache, with rates of 20% in the alitretinoin 30 mg group and 11% in the alitretinoin 10mg group, respectively. Serious adverse events were rare, although alitretinoin was associated with increases in both total cholesterol and triglycerides. No direct or indirect comparisons of alitretinoin with any of the relevant treatment comparators (psoralen +UVA [PUVA], ciclosporin or azathioprine) were available.In the manufacturer’s original submission to NICE, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported for alitretinoin were £8614 per QALY versus ciclosporin, −£469 per QALY versus PUVA (with alitretinoin dominant) and £10 612 per QALY versus azathioprine (year 2007–8 values). In response to a request from the ERG, the manufacturers provided a revised model that compared alitretinoin only with placebo, for which the ICER was reported to be £12 931. However, the omission of adverse events entirely from this revised model, in combination with a number of other factors, led the ERG to conclude that the model underestimated the costs of treatment associated with alitretinoin. Estimates of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) were the primary source of uncertainty, with the use of values from an alternative source producing ICERs of around £30 000 per QALY gained.The ERG concluded that, although the evidence presented indicates that alitretinoin is efficacious in the treatment of severe CHE, it gives little indication of alitretinoin’s efficacy relative to likely alternative treatment options or its efficacy and safety in the longer term. Although the ICERs estimated by the manufacturer suggested that alitretinoin may be cost effective for use in the UK NHS, utilizing the alternative HR-QOL estimates resulted in a 2-fold increase in the ICER. Thus, there was considerable uncertainty as to the true ICER of alitretinoin versus the relevant treatment comparators. The Appraisal Committee recommended that alitretinoin be provided to those patients with severe CHE and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of at least 15. They recommended that treatment be stopped as soon as an adequate response was observed, or if CHE remained severe at 12 weeks, or if response was inadequate at 24 weeks.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder: a systematic review of controlled trials

Abstract We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating all clinically relevant pharmacological interventions for the prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. Thirty-four trials were included in the review. Direct comparisons with placebo and with lithium were available for most drugs. In addition, there were direct comparisons of valproate vs. olanzapine, imipramine vs. lithium plus imipramine, olanzapine plus mood stabilisers vs. mood stabilisers and perphenazine plus mood stabilisers vs. mood stabilisers. Methodological quality varied across studies and the strength of evidence was not equal for all treatments or for all comparisons. There is evidence from placebo-controlled trials for the efficacy of lithium, valproate and lamotrigine as maintenance therapy for the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. Three drugs have a significant effect in the prevention of manic relapses (lithium, olanzapine and aripiprazole) and three in the prevention of depressive symptoms (valproate, lamotrigine and imipramine). Imipramine is little used in practice, because of concern about adverse effects. The significant effects of olanzapine and aripiprazole were demonstrated in selected responsive bipolar I patients only. Despite widespread use in clinical practice, there is little evidence to support the efficacy of combination therapy.

Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches?

BACKGROUND Since 2005, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals have required that clinical trials be registered in publicly available trials registers before they are considered for publication. OBJECTIVES The research explores whether it is adequate, when searching to inform systematic reviews, to search for relevant clinical trials using only public trials registers and to identify the optimal search approaches in trials registers. METHODS A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for research studies that had been included in eight systematic reviews. Four search approaches (highly sensitive, sensitive, precise, and highly precise) were performed using the basic and advanced interfaces in both resources. RESULTS On average, 84% of studies were not listed in either resource. The largest number of included studies was retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP when a sensitive search approach was used in the basic interface. The use of the advanced interface maintained or improved sensitivity in 16 of 19 strategies for Clinicaltrials.gov and 8 of 18 for ICTRP. No single search approach was sensitive enough to identify all studies included in the 6 reviews. CONCLUSIONS Trials registers cannot yet be relied upon as the sole means to locate trials for systematic reviews. Trials registers lag behind the major bibliographic databases in terms of their search interfaces. IMPLICATIONS For systematic reviews, trials registers and major bibliographic databases should be searched. Trials registers should be searched using sensitive approaches, and both the registers consulted in this study should be searched.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. METHODS A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. RESULTS Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. CONCLUSIONS Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.

Integrated sensor-augmented pump therapy systems [the MiniMed® Paradigm™ Veo system and the Vibe™ and G4® PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system] for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND In recent years, meters for continuous monitoring of interstitial fluid glucose have been introduced to help people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) to achieve better control of their disease. OBJECTIVE The objective of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed(®) Paradigm™ Veo system (Medtronic Inc., Northridge, CA, USA) and the Vibe™ (Animas(®) Corporation, West Chester, PA, USA) and G4(®) PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system (Dexcom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in comparison with multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), both with either self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or CGM, for the management of T1DM in adults and children. DATA SOURCES A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostic Assessment Programme manual. We searched 14 databases, three trial registries and two conference proceedings from study inception up to September 2014. In addition, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were checked. In the absence of randomised controlled trials directly comparing Veo or an integrated CSII + CGM system, such as Vibe, with comparator interventions, indirect treatment comparisons were performed if possible. METHODS A commercially available cost-effectiveness model, the IMS Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness diabetes model version 8.5 (IMS Health, Danbury, CT, USA), was used for this assessment. This model is an internet-based, interactive simulation model that predicts the long-term health outcomes and costs associated with the management of T1DM and type 2 diabetes. The model consists of 15 submodels designed to simulate diabetes-related complications, non-specific mortality and costs over time. As the model simulates individual patients over time, it updates risk factors and complications to account for disease progression. RESULTS Fifty-four publications resulting from 19 studies were included in the review. Overall, the evidence suggests that the Veo system reduces hypoglycaemic events more than other treatments, without any differences in other outcomes, including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. We also found significant results in favour of the integrated CSII + CGM system over MDIs with SMBG with regard to HbA1c levels and quality of life. However, the evidence base was poor. The quality of the included studies was generally low, often with only one study comparing treatments in a specific population at a specific follow-up time. In particular, there was only one study comparing Veo with an integrated CSII + CGM system and only one study comparing Veo with a CSII + SMBG system in a mixed population. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that MDI + SMBG is the option most likely to be cost-effective, given the current threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas integrated CSII + CGM systems and Veo are dominated and extendedly dominated, respectively, by stand-alone, non-integrated CSII with CGM. Scenario analyses did not alter these conclusions. No cost-effectiveness modelling was conducted for children or pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS The Veo system does appear to be better than the other systems considered at reducing hypoglycaemic events. However, in adults, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Integrated systems are also generally unlikely to be cost-effective given that stand-alone systems are cheaper and, possibly, no less effective. However, evidence in this regard is generally lacking, in particular for children. Future trials in specific child, adolescent and adult populations should include longer term follow-up and ratings on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions scale at various time points with a view to informing improved cost-effectiveness modelling. STUDY REGISTRATION PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42014013764. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.