The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

ObjectivesMotivated by recent calls to use electronic health records for research, we reviewed the application and development of methods for addressing the bias from unmeasured confounding in longitudinal data.Study Design and SettingMethodological review of existing literature. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles addressing the threat to causal inference from unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal health data through quasi-experimental analysis.ResultsAmong the 121 studies included for review, 84 used instrumental variable analysis (IVA), of which 36 used lagged or historical instruments. Difference-in-differences (DiD) and fixed effects (FE) models were found in 29 studies. Five of these combined IVA with DiD or FE to try to mitigate for time-dependent confounding. Other less frequently used methods included prior event rate ratio adjustment, regression discontinuity nested within pre-post studies, propensity score calibration, perturbation analysis, and negative control outcomes.ConclusionWell-established econometric methods such as DiD and IVA are commonly used to address unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies, but researchers often fail to take full advantage of available longitudinal information. A range of promising new methods have been developed, but further studies are needed to understand their relative performance in different contexts before they can be recommended for widespread use.

BackgroundEnd-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.ObjectivesTo review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin®, Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport®, Sandoz; Capexion®, Mylan; Modigraf®, Astellas Pharma; Perixis®, Accord Healthcare; Prograf®, Astellas Pharma; Tacni®, Teva; Vivadex®, Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf®Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix®, Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip®, Zentiva; CellCept®, Roche Products; Myfenax®, Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune®, Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican®, Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation.MethodsClinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association’s electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time–state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.ResultsEighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY.LimitationsFor included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled.Future workHigh-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome.ConclusionOnly a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000–30,000 per QALY.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Dean SG, Hillsdon M, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial and economic and process evaluation to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel intervention [Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP)] to prevent obesity in school children. Public Health Res 2018;6(1). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Public Health ResearchEditorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full PHR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/phr. 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 Public Health Research journalReports are published in Public Health Research (PHR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PHR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Public Health Research 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. PHR programmeThe Public Health Research (PHR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), evaluates public health interventions, providing new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of non-NHS interventions intended to improve the health of the public and reduce inequalities in health. The scope of the programme is multi-disciplinary and broad, covering a range of interventions that improve public health. The Public Health Research programme also complements the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme which has a growing portfolio evaluating NHS public health interventions.For more information about the PHR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/phr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the PHR programme as project number 10/3010/01. The contractual start date was in March 2012. The final report began editorial review in November 2016 and was accepted for publication in February 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PHR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report 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 PHR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions express...

BackgroundPeripheral 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.MethodsThese 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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 registrationThe protocol for the larger study was registered with PROSPERO no. CRD42012002093.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-016-0252-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK).ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.Data sourcesThe assessment included 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 up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library.Review methodsStudies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer withRASWT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results forRASWT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who areRASWT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) forRASWT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates.LimitationsThe trials includedRASWT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks.ConclusionsAlthough cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial forRASWT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, 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 in patients withRASWT.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

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.