A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression C Jane Morrell, 1 * Paul Sutcliffe, 2 Andrew Booth, 3 John Stevens, 3 This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 11/95/03. The contractual start date was in November 2012. The draft report began editorial review in August 2014 and was accepted for publication in June 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department ...

ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of eculizumab for patients with atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS), compared with current treatment options.DesignA systematic review was performed according to the general principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. All study designs were included, except case histories.ParticipantsAll patients diagnosed with aHUS were included; no age restrictions were used.InterventionsEculizumab compared with current treatment options.Identification of studies12 databases were searched. Additional searches were performed through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Electronic Medicines Compendium websites, Google internet searches and contacting clinical experts. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional studies.Results2 small, uncontrolled prospective multinational, multicentre studies and one small uncontrolled multinational, multicentre retrospective study were included. No meta-analyses were performed. Compared with baseline measures, thrombotic microangiopathy event-free status was achieved in 84% of patients in the prospective studies. Adverse events, as documented by enrolling investigators were frequent, with upper-respiratory tract infection affecting a third of patients. No deaths or episodes of meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia occurred in the prospective studies. Results of the study extension phases up to 114 weeks indicate that the benefits of the treatment are sustained.ConclusionsEculizumab is clinically effective for the treatment of aHUS. Further research is needed to evaluate eculizumab, ideally using patient-related clinical outcomes. If randomised studies are not feasible, study investigators should ensure that the threat of bias is minimised in future studies of eculizumab with respect to the reporting of patient recruitment and selection.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vedolizumab (Takeda UK) to submit evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The Evidence Review Group (ERG) produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the technology, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from the GEMINI1 trial, which is a Phase III, multicentre, randomised, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab as an induction and maintenance treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC who had an inadequate response to, loss of response to, or intolerance to conventional therapy or anti-Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-). The clinical evidence showed that vedolizumab performed significantly better than placebo in both the induction and maintenance phases. In the post-hoc subgroup analyses, patients with or without prior anti-TNF-therapy, vedolizumab performed better then placebo (p-value not reported). In addition, a greater improvement in health-related quality of life was observed in patients treated with vedolizumab and the frequency and types of adverse events were similar between the vedolizumab and placebo group but the evidence was limited to shortterm follow-up. There were a number of limitations and uncertainties in the clinical evidence base which warrant caution in its interpretation. In particular, the post-hoc subgroup analyses and high dropout rates in the maintenance phase of the GEMINI1 trial. The company also presented a network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus other biologics therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe UC. However, the ERG considered that the results presented may have underestimated the uncertainty in treatment effects since fixed effects models were Key Points for Decision Makers Vedolizumab appears to be more effective in both the induction and maintenance phase compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to, loss of response to, or intolerance to conventional therapy or TNF-inhibitor. However, the subgroup analyses for patients with or without prior TNF-inhibitor therapy were post-hoc and the study was not powered for these assessments.  The findings of the network meta-analysis of vedolizumab versus TNF-inhibitor are limited due to a number of uncertainties in treatment effects. In addition, there is currently no head-to-head randomised 3 controlled trial comparing vedolizumab to other biologic therapies indicated for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.  The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Appraisal Committee recommended vedolizumab within its licence indication but only if the company provides vedolizumab with the discount agr...

Background Breast cancer and its treatment can have an impact on health-related quality of life and survival. Tumour profiling tests aim to identify whether or not women need chemotherapy owing to their risk of relapse. Objectives To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the tumour profiling tests oncotype DX® (Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA), MammaPrint® (Agendia, Inc., Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Prosigna® (NanoString Technologies, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), EndoPredict® (Myriad Genetics Ltd, London, UK) and immunohistochemistry 4 (IHC4). To develop a health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of these tests compared with clinical tools to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Design A systematic review and health economic analysis were conducted. Review methods The systematic review was partially an update of a 2013 review. Nine databases were searched in February 2017. The review included studies assessing clinical effectiveness in people with oestrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I or II cancer with zero to three positive lymph nodes. The economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a de novo model. Results A total of 153 studies were identified. Only one completed randomised controlled trial (RCT) using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice was identified: Microarray In Node-negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy (MINDACT) for MammaPrint. Other studies suggest that all the tests can provide information on the risk of relapse; however, results were more varied in lymph node-positive (LN+) patients than in lymph node-negative (LN0) patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint can predict benefit from chemotherapy. The net change in the percentage of patients with a chemotherapy recommendation or decision pre/post test ranged from an increase of 1% to a decrease of 23% among UK studies and a decrease of 0% to 64% across European studies. The health economic analysis suggests that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the tests versus current practice are broadly favourable for the following scenarios: (1) oncotype DX, for the LN0 subgroup with a Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) of > 3.4 and the one to three positive lymph nodes (LN1–3) subgroup (if a predictive benefit is assumed); (2) IHC4 plus clinical factors (IHC4+C), for all patient subgroups; (3) Prosigna, for the LN0 subgroup with a NPI of > 3.4 and the LN1–3 subgroup; (4) EndoPredict Clinical, for the LN1–3 subgroup only; and (5) MammaPrint, for no subgroups. Limitations There was only one completed RCT using a tumour profiling test in clinical practice. Except for oncotype DX in the LN0 group with a NPI score of > 3.4 (clinical intermediate risk), evidence surrounding pre- and post-test chemotherapy probabilities is subject to considerable uncertainty. There is uncertainty regarding whether or not oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. The MammaPrint analysis uses a different data source to the other four tests. The Translational substudy of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (TransATAC) study (used in the economic modelling) has a number of limitations. Conclusions The review suggests that all the tests can provide prognostic information on the risk of relapse; results were more varied in LN+ patients than in LN0 patients. There is limited and varying evidence that oncotype DX and MammaPrint are predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Health economic analyses indicate that some tests may have a favourable cost-effectiveness profile for certain patient subgroups; all estimates are subject to uncertainty. More evidence is needed on the prediction of chemotherapy benefit, long-term impacts and changes in UK pre-/post-chemotherapy decisions. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017059561. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Glutaric aciduria type 1, homocystinuria, isovaleric acidaemia, long-chain hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase deficiency and maple syrup urine disease are all inborn errors of metabolism that can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. This evaluation was undertaken in 2013 to provide evidence to the UK National Screening Committee for the cost-effectiveness of including these five conditions in the UK Newborn Bloodspot Screening Programme. A decision-tree model with lifetable estimates of outcomes was built with the model structure and parameterisation informed by a systematic review and expert clinical judgment. A National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective was used, and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 1.5%. Uncertainty in the results was explored using expected value of perfect information analysis methods together with a sensitivity analysis using the screened incidence rate in the UK from 2014 to 2018. The model estimates that screening for all the conditions is more effective and cost saving when compared to not screening for each of the conditions, and the results were robust to the updated incidence rates. The key uncertainties included the sensitivity and specificity of the screening test and the estimated costs and QALYs.