Background: Anaemia is a common side-effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions (RBCTs) to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA).
Methods: the clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by NHS CRD. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care (BSC), placebo, or other ESA. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Where appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment to no ESA treatment. The model has two components: one evaluating short-term costs and QALYs (while patients are anaemic); and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% pa. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.
Results: Twenty-three studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current EU licenses. Results suggest that there is clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes. Data suggest improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain; although point estimates are lower confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment versus no ESA treatment ranged from £19,429–£35,018 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost.
Conclusions: ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence but there is considerable uncertainty mainly due to unknown impacts on overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral venous cannulation is an everyday practice in hospitals, which many adults find painful. However, anaesthesia for cannulation is usually only offered to children. Inadequate pain relief is not only unpleasant for patients but may cause anxiety about further treatment and deter patients from seeking medical care in the future. The aim of this study is to discover the most effective local anaesthetic for adult peripheral venous cannulation and to find out how the pain of local anaesthetic application compares with that of unattenuated cannulation. METHODS: These aims are addressed through a systematic review, network meta-analysis and random-effects meta-analysis. Searching covered 12 databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1990 to August 2015. The main included study design was RCTs. The primary outcome measure is self-reported pain, measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. RESULTS: the systematic review found 37 includable studies, 27 of which were suitable for network meta-analysis and two for random-effects meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis indicate that none of the 17 anaesthetic considered had a very high probability of being the most effective when compared to each other; 2 % lidocaine had the highest probability (44 %). When the anaesthetics were compared to no treatment, the network meta-analysis showed that again 2 % lidocaine was estimated to be the most effective (mean difference -25.42 (95 % CI -32.25, -18.57). Other members of the 'caine' family were also estimated to be more effective than no treatment as were Ametop®, EMLA® and Rapydan® patch. The meta-analysis compared the pain of anaesthetic application with the unattenuated pain of cannulation. This found that all applications of local anaesthetic were less painful than cannulation without local anaesthetic. In particular a 1 % lidocaine injection was estimated to be -12.97 (95 % CI -15.71, -10.24) points (100 mm VAS) less painful than unattenuated cannulation. CONCLUSIONS: the pain of peripheral venous cannulation in adults can be successfully treated. The pain of application of any local anaesthetic is less than that of unattenuated cannulation. Local anaesthetic prior to cannulation should become normal practice and a marker of high quality care. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: the protocol for the larger study was registered with PROSPERO no. CRD42012002093.

Background: Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common complaint causing characteristic pain in the lateral elbow and upper forearm, and tenderness of the forearm extensor muscles. It is thought to be an overuse injury and can have a major impact on the patient's social and professional life. The condition is challenging to treat and prone to recurrent episodes. The average duration of a typical episode ranges from 6 to 24 months, with most (89%) reporting recovery by 1 year.Objectives: This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET.Data sources: a comprehensive search was conducted from database inception to 2012 in a range of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.Methods and outcomes: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to summarise the current evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and a systematic review for the cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET. We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that could contribute further evidence to existing systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and other important databases from inception to January 2013.Results: a total of 29 systematic reviews published since 2003 matched our inclusion criteria. These were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; five were considered high quality and evaluated using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A total of 36 RCTs were identified that were not included in a systematic review and 29 RCTs were identified that had only been evaluated in an included systematic review of intermediate/low quality. These were then mapped to existing systematic reviews where further evidence could provide updates. Two economic evaluations were identified.Limitations: the summary of findings from the review was based only on high-quality evidence (scoring of > 5 AMSTAR). Other limitations were that identified RCTs were not quality appraised and dichotomous outcomes were also not considered. Economic evaluations took effectiveness estimates from trials that had small sample sizes leading to uncertainty surrounding the effect sizes reported. This, in turn, led to uncertainty of the reported cost-effectiveness and, as such, no robust recommendations could be made in this respect. Conclusions: Clinical effectiveness evidence from the high-quality systematic reviews identified in this overview continues to suggest uncertainty as to the effectiveness of many conservative interventions for the treatment of LET. Although new RCT evidence has been identified with either placebo or active controls, there is uncertainty as to the size of effects reported within them because of the small sample size. Conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are also unclear. We consider that, although updated or new systematic reviews may also be of value, the primary focus of future work should be on conducting large-scale, good-quality clinical trials using a core set of outcome measures (for defined time points) and appropriate follow-up. Subgroup analysis of existing RCT data may be beneficial to ascertain whether or not certain patient groups are more likely to respond to treatments. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003593.

OBJECTIVES: to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab monotherapy, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab monotherapy compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the third and subsequent lines of treatment of patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: an "an area under the curve" cost-effectiveness model was developed. The clinical effectiveness evidence for both cetuximab and panitumumab was taken from a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) in each case and for cetuximab plus irinotecan from several sources. RESULTS: Patients are predicted to survive for approximately 6 months on BSC, 8.5 months on panitumumab, 10 months on cetuximab, and 16.5 months on cetuximab plus irinotecan. Panitumumab is dominated, and cetuximab is extended dominated. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £95,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated for cetuximab versus BSC and is likely to be relatively accurate, because the relevant clinical evidence is taken from a high-quality RCT. The estimated ICER for panitumumab versus BSC, at £187,000 per QALY, is less certain due to assumptions in the adjustment for the substantial crossing-over of patients in the RCT. The ICER for cetuximab plus irinotecan versus BSC, at £88,000 per QALY, is least certain due to substantial uncertainty about progression-free survival, treatment duration, and overall survival. Nonetheless, when key parameters are varied within plausible ranges, all three treatments always remain poor value for money. CONCLUSIONS: all three treatments are highly unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this patient population in the United Kingdom. We explain how the reader can adapt the model for other countries.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast and lung cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Recently, targeted agents have become available including anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents, for example cetuximab and panitumumab, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor agents, for example bevacizumab. OBJECTIVE: to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab monotherapy and cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy) for Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) wild-type (WT) patients, and bevacizumab in combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy, for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy. DATA SOURCES: the assessment comprises a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, from 2005 to November 2010. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab, bevacizumab or panitumumab in participants with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS WT status that has progressed after first-line chemotherapy (for cetuximab and panitumumab) or participants with metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after first-line chemotherapy (bevacizumab). All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Synthesis was mainly narrative. An economic model was developed focusing on third-line and subsequent lines of treatment. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: the searches identified 7745 titles and abstracts. Two clinical trials (reported in 12 papers) were included. No data were available for bevacizumab in combination with non-oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in previously treated patients. Neither of the included studies had KRAS status performed prospectively, but the studies did report retrospective analyses of the results for the KRAS WT subgroups. Third-line treatment with cetuximab plus best supportive care or panitumumab plus best supportive care appears to have statistically significant advantages over treatment with best supportive care alone in patients with KRAS WT status. For the economic evaluation, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for KRAS WT patients for cetuximab compared with best supportive care is £98,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for panitumumab compared with best supportive care is £150,000 per QALY and for cetuximab plus irinotecan compared with best supportive care is £88,000 per QALY. All ICERs are sensitive to treatment duration. LIMITATIONS: in the specific populations of interest, there is a lack of evidence on bevacizumab, cetuximab and cetuximab plus irinotecan used second line and on bevacizumab and cetuximab plus irinotecan used third line. For cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment for KRAS WT people, there is no direct evidence on progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although cetuximab and panitumumab appear to be clinically beneficial for KRAS WT patients compared with best supportive care, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT for patients with KRAS WT status receiving cetuximab plus irinotecan. FUNDING: the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BACKGROUND: in the UK, approximately 10 000 people have cochlear implants, more than 99% with a unilateral implant. Evidence shows that adults implanted bilaterally may benefit from binaural advantages; however, systematic review evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: to conduct a systematic review to discover the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using bilateral cochlear implants in adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss by comparing their effectiveness with unilateral cochlear implantation or unilateral cochlear implantation and acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: This examined 16 electronic databases, plus bibliographies and references for published and unpublished studies. EVALUATION METHOD: Abstracts were independently assessed against inclusion criteria by two researchers, and disagreements were resolved. Selected papers were then retrieved and further independently assessed in a similar way. Included studies had their data extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: Searches yielded 2892 abstracts producing 19 includable studies. Heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis. However, all studies reported that bilateral cochlear implants improved hearing and speech perception: one randomised controlled trial found a significant binaural benefit over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front (12.6 ± 5.4%, P < 0.001) and when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear (21 ± 6%, P < 0.001); and another found a significant benefit for spatial hearing at 3 and 9 months post-implantation compared with pre-implantation [mean difference (sd) scores: 3 months = 1.46 (0.83-2.09), P < 0.01].Quality of life results varied, showing bilateral implantation may improve quality of life in the absence of worsening tinnitus. Limited cost-effectiveness evidence showed that bilateral implantation is probably only cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold above £62 000 per quality adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Despite inconsistency in the quality of available evidence, the robustness of systematic review methods gives weight to the positive findings of included studies demonstrating that bilateral implantation is clinically effective in adults but unlikely to be cost-effective.

Background: Nilotinib and dasatinib are now being considered as alternative treatments to imatinib as a first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). Objective: This technology assessment reviews the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. Data sources: Databases [including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website] were searched from search end date of the last technology appraisal report on this topic in October 2002 to September 2011. Review methods: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies; a review of surrogate relationships with survival; a review and critique of manufacturer submissions; and a model-based economic analysis. Results: Two clinical trials (dasatinib vs imatinib and nilotinib vs imatinib) were included in the effectiveness review. Survival was not significantly different for dasatinib or nilotinib compared with imatinib with the 24-month follow-up data available. The rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were higher for patients receiving dasatinib than for those with imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 83% vs 72%, p < 0.001; MMR 46% vs 28%, p < 0.0001). The rates of CCyR and MMR were higher for patients receiving nilotinib than for those receiving imatinib for 12 months' followup (CCyR 80% vs 65%, p < 0.001; MMR 44% vs 22%, p < 0.0001). An indirect comparison analysis showed no difference between dasatinib and nilotinib for CCyR or MMR rates for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR, odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.92; MMR, odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16). There is observational association evidence from imatinib studies supporting the use of CCyR and MMR at 12 months as surrogates for overall all-cause survival and progression-free survival in patients with CML in chronic phase. In the costeffectiveness modelling scenario, analyses were provided to reflect the extensive structural uncertainty and different approaches to estimating OS. First-line dasatinib is predicted to provide very poor value for money compared with first-line imatinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of between £256,000 and £450,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conversely, first-line nilotinib provided favourable ICERs at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Limitations: Immaturity of empirical trial data relative to life expectancy, forcing either reliance on surrogate relationships or cumulative survival/treatment duration assumptions. Conclusions: from the two trials available, dasatinib and nilotinib have a statistically significant advantage compared with imatinib as measured by MMR or CCyR. Taking into account the treatment pathways for patients with CML, i.e. assuming the use of secondline nilotinib, first-line nilotinib appears to be more cost-effective than first-line imatinib. Dasatinib was not cost-effective if decision thresholds of £20,000 per QALY or £30,000 per QALY were used, compared with imatinib and nilotinib. Uncertainty in the costeffectiveness analysis would be substantially reduced with better and more UK-specific data on the incidence and cost of stem cell transplantation in patients with chronic CML. Funding: the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2012.

INTRODUCTION: This protocol covers the first part of a two-part project funded by the Health Libraries Group and the University Health and Medical Librarians Group. It details the proposed methodology for a systematic map of the literature relating to UK bibliographic databases in the fields of health and social care. The aim of this mapping exercise is to consider ways in which UK bibliographic databases are described, considered and discussed in the published and unpublished literature. In doing so, we hope to gain a clearer sense of the ways in which UK bibliographic databases are used and viewed by the research community. It also enables the identification of any gaps in the literature for further research and discussion. This topic is important because UK databases are generally underused by researchers in the UK context and some databases are at risk of closure. A lack of access to UK databases means that researchers may miss relevant UK evidence when identifying an evidence base. METHOD: Systematic Map. ANALYSIS: the authors will present a narrative description of the literature relating to UK bibliographic databases in the fields of health and social care. They will use tables to present descriptive information about the literature (eg, frequency tables) and use cross-tabulations to demonstrate intersecting themes. Separately, guidance on how to use the resources (eg, areas of unique content, updating frequencies, unique truncation symbols) will be sought from stakeholders and reported alongside the report narrative as a guide to usage.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ofatumumab for the treatment of refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), based upon the manufacturer's submission (MS) to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence included one study: a non-randomised, single-arm study. Two other studies were identified but both were non-comparative and provided evidence for therapies other than ofatumumab. For this reason these studies were not discussed in full in the main body of the submission. In the Hx-CD20-406 study, the overall response rate was 58% (99% confidence interval 40% to 74%, p < 0.001). Complete resolution of constitutional symptoms and improved performance status occurred in 57% of patients. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were 5.7 and 13.7 months, respectively. The most common adverse events during treatment were infusion reactions and infections, which were primarily grade 1 or 2 events. The MS concluded that ofatumumab provides a new, effective and well-tolerated therapy for patients with CLL who are refractory to both fludarabine and alemtuzumab [double refractory (DR)]. The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG had a number of concerns regarding the manufacturer's estimates of effectiveness based on evidence from a single-arm, non-randomised study. An 'area-under-the-curve' or 'partitioned-survival' model was used to project expected clinical and economic outcomes for patients with DR CLL who were assumed to receive ofatumumab or best supportive care (BSC). The model had a three-state structure: 'alive pre-progression', 'alive post progression' and 'dead'. Overall, the modelling approach is reasonable given the limited evidence available for the drug in the patient population under review. However, a number of uncertainties were identified in the economic evaluation; for example, the BSC arm used data from patients in the Hx-CD20-406 study who did not respond to ofatumumab treatment - 'non-responders' - and the ofatumumab arm used data from all of those treated in the Hx-CD20-406 study. Further uncertainty arose regarding the choice of utilities, the omission of 17p and 11q chromosomal deletions as factors in the Cox proportional hazards models for PFS and OS, and the omission of the costs of drugs in progressive disease. It was felt that these factors biased cost-effectiveness in favour of ofatumumab. When revisions were made to the assumptions in the model based on the ERG's review of the published and submitted evidence, the revised base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ofatumumab increased to £ 81,500 per quality-adjusted life-year. The final appraisal determination was issued by NICE in September 2010 (www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/12264/50758/50758.pdf).

This paper represents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) which has progressed following or on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab), compared to BSC alone. The submitting manufacturer's case for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was mainly based on a well-conducted randomised controlled trial (RCT), Renal Cell Cancer Treatment with Oral RAD001 Given Daily-1 (RECORD-1), comparing BSC plus everolimus with BSC plus placebo and a de novo economic model. The RCT indicated a marked statistically significant effect on progression-free survival. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimate was 52,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (this included a reduction in drug cost associated with an approved patient access scheme). The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG was generally in agreement with the submitting manufacturer concerning its estimates of effectiveness; however, there was greater concern surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness. The ERG judged that if potential errors in the model were corrected, the ICERs offered by the submitting manufacturer would overstate the cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the second-line treatment of metastatic RCC (that this ICER would be a higher value). Concerning the estimates of cost-effectiveness in RCC, the observations in the ERG report provide strong further support for research collecting rigorous estimates of utilities associated with the main health states likely to be experienced by patients with renal cell cancer. At the time of writing, NICE was yet to issue the Appraisal Consultation Document for this appraisal.

This paper represents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) which has progressed following or on vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (sunitinib, sorafenib, bevacizumab), compared to BSC alone. The submitting manufacturer's case for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness was mainly based on a well-conducted randomised controlled trial (RCT), Renal Cell Cancer Treatment with Oral RAD001 Given Daily-1 (RECORD-1), comparing BSC plus everolimus with BSC plus placebo and a de novo economic model. The RCT indicated a marked statistically significant effect on progression-free survival. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimate was 52,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (this included a reduction in drug cost associated with an approved patient access scheme). The ERG undertook a critical appraisal of the submission. The ERG was generally in agreement with the submitting manufacturer concerning its estimates of effectiveness; however, there was greater concern surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness. The ERG judged that if potential errors in the model were corrected, the ICERs offered by the submitting manufacturer would overstate the cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the second-line treatment of metastatic RCC (that this ICER would be a higher value). Concerning the estimates of cost-effectiveness in RCC, the observations in the ERG report provide strong further support for research collecting rigorous estimates of utilities associated with the main health states likely to be experienced by patients with renal cell cancer. At the time of writing, NICE was yet to issue the Appraisal Consultation Document for this appraisal.