No abstract

BackgroundThe surfaces of the bones in the knee are covered with articular cartilage, a rubber-like substance that is very smooth, allowing frictionless movement in the joint and acting as a shock absorber. The cells that form the cartilage are called chondrocytes. Natural cartilage is called hyaline cartilage. Articular cartilage has very little capacity for self-repair, so damage may be permanent. Various methods have been used to try to repair cartilage. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) involves laboratory culture of cartilage-producing cells from the knee and then implanting them into the chondral defect.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ACI in chondral defects in the knee, compared with microfracture (MF).Data sourcesA broad search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Web of Science, for studies published since the last Health Technology Assessment review.Review methodsSystematic review of recent reviews, trials, long-term observational studies and economic evaluations of the use of ACI and MF for repairing symptomatic articular cartilage defects of the knee. A new economic model was constructed. Submissions from two manufacturers and the ACTIVE (Autologous Chondrocyte Transplantation/Implantation Versus Existing Treatment) trial group were reviewed. Survival analysis was based on long-term observational studies.ResultsFour randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the last appraisal provided evidence on the efficacy of ACI. The SUMMIT (Superiority of Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implant versus Microfracture for Treatment of symptomatic articular cartilage defects) trial compared matrix-applied chondrocyte implantation (MACI®) against MF. The TIG/ACT/01/2000 (TIG/ACT) trial compared ACI with characterised chondrocytes against MF. The ACTIVE trial compared several forms of ACI against standard treatments, mainly MF. In the SUMMIT trial, improvements in knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOSs), and the proportion of responders, were greater in the MACI group than in the MF group. In the TIG/ACT trial there was improvement in the KOOS at 60 months, but no difference between ACI and MF overall. Patients with onset of symptoms < 3 years’ duration did better with ACI. Results from ACTIVE have not yet been published. Survival analysis suggests that long-term results are better with ACI than with MF. Economic modelling suggested that ACI was cost-effective compared with MF across a range of scenarios.LimitationsThe main limitation is the lack of RCT data beyond 5 years of follow-up. A second is that the techniques of ACI are evolving, so long-term data come from trials using forms of ACI that are now superseded. In the modelling, we therefore assumed that durability of cartilage repair as seen in studies of older forms of ACI could be applied in modelling of newer forms. A third is that the high list prices of chondrocytes are reduced by confidential discounting. The main research needs are for longer-term follow-up and for trials of the next generation of ACI.ConclusionsThe evidence base for ACI has improved since the last appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. In most analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ACI compared with MF appear to be within a range usually considered acceptable. Research is needed into long-term results of new forms of ACI.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013083.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Publisher statement: This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 10. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.' Shyangdan, D.S. et al. (2011). Glucagon-like peptide analogues for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD006423.

ObjectiveBecause of the lack of head-to-head trials, the aim was to indirectly compare sodium glucose transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 2005 to January 2015.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone or metformin monotherapy. Minimum duration 24 weeks. Indirect comparison was undertaken using Bayesian methods.ResultsIn monotherapy, a greater proportion of patients achieved a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level of <7% on canagliflozin 300 mg than on canagliflozin 100 mg (risk ratio (RR) 0.72%, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.59% to 0.87%) and dapagliflozin 10 mg (RR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.48 to 0.85) but there were no significant differences compared with either dose of empagliflozin. In monotherapy, canagliflozin 300 mg reduced HbA1c more than other SGLT-2 inhibitors (mean difference ranged from 0.20% to 0.64%). There were no significant differences in weight reduction. All the flozins reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) more than placebo, ranging from a reduction of 6 mm Hg with canagliflozin 300–2.6 mm Hg with empagliflozin 10 mg. In dual therapy with metformin, all flozins were more effective than placebo for achieving HbA1c <7%, and reducing HbA1c, weight and SBP. The proportions achieving HbA1c level of <7% were mostly similar. Canagliflozin 300 mg reduced HbA1c more than the other drugs but this just reached statistical significance only against canagliflozin 100 mg (MD 0.15, CrI 0.04 to 0.26).ConclusionsThere were few differences among the SGLT-2 inhibitors, but in monotherapy, the glucose-lowering effect of canagliflozin 300 mg is slightly greater than most other SGLT-2 inhibitors.