Theophylline is the most widely used anti-asthma drug worldwide and is classified as a bronchodilator, although there is increasing evidence that it may have immunomodulatory effects. We have investigated the effects of theophylline withdrawal under placebo control in 27 asthmatic patients (25 to 70 yr) treated with long-term theophylline who were also treated with high dose inhaled corticosteroids. We measured asthma symptoms (diary card), lung function (spirometry and home records of peak expiratory flow), and peripheral leukocyte populations using dual color flow cytometry. In eight of these patients, we examined fiberoptic bronchial biopsies by immunocytochemistry. We also studied peripheral blood lymphocytes in eight asthmatic patients who have never received theophylline. Mean steady state plasma theophylline concentrations during theophylline therapy were 8.6 +/- 0.9 mg/L. Theophylline withdrawal was associated with a significant increase in asthma symptoms, particularly at night, and a fall in spirometry and morning peak flow. This was accompanied by a significant fall in peripheral blood monocytes (CD14+, activated CD4+ T-lymphocytes (CD4+/CD25+) and activated CD8+ T-cells (CD8+/HLA-DR+) in patients with a plasma theophylline > 5 mg/L. The lymphocyte populations in theophylline-naive patients were similar to those found after theophylline withdrawal. Bronchial biopsies showed a mirror image of the peripheral blood with an increase in CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocytes in the airway. Chronic treatment with theophylline, even at low plasma concentrations, controls asthma symptoms and has effects on T-lymphocyte populations in the peripheral blood which are the inverse of those observed in the airways.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

BackgroundJuvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and a limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs [etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer), abatacept (Orencia®, Bristol-Myers Squibb), adalimumab (Humira®, AbbVie) and tocilizumab (RoActemra®, Roche) – with or without methotrexate where indicated] for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA are excluded).Data sourcesElectronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methodsSystematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost–utility decision-analytic model was developed to compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base-case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.ResultsFour placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi)-30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar, with fewer disease flares and greater proportions of ACR Pedi-50 and -70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARDs. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that, generally, ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality-of-life studies were included, one of which informed the cost–utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate were £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second-line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.LimitationsThe model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs, and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.ConclusionsBiologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA who have had an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow-up are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes for which evidence is lacking are also required.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016459.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

growth factor (alone or in combination with soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1) as an aid to the assessment of women with suspected pre-eclampsia: systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(87).Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch ® ) and Current Contents ® / Clinical Medicine. This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment NICE TAR and DAREditorial 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 commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 14/69/05. The protocol was agreed in March 2015. The assessment report began editorial review in September 2015 and was accepted for publication in June 2016. 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 ...

BackgroundCurrent clinical practice is to remove a colorectal polyp detected during colonoscopy and determine whether it is an adenoma or hyperplastic by histopathology. Identifying adenomas is important because they may eventually become cancerous if untreated, whereas hyperplastic polyps do not usually develop into cancer, and a surveillance interval is set based on the number and size of adenomas found. Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) (an electronic endoscopic imaging technique) could be used by the endoscopist under strictly controlled conditions for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VCE technologies narrow-band imaging (NBI), flexible spectral imaging colour enhancement (FICE) and i-scan for the characterisation and management of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps using high-definition (HD) systems without magnification.DesignSystematic review and economic analysis.ParticipantsPeople undergoing colonoscopy for screening or surveillance or to investigate symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer.InterventionsNBI, FICE and i-scan.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic accuracy, recommended surveillance intervals, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects, incidence of colorectal cancer, mortality and cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology.Data sourcesElectronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for published English-language studies from inception to June 2016. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company information were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methodsSystematic reviews of test accuracy and economic evaluations were undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, to inform the independent economic model. A cost–utility decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of VCE compared with histopathology. The model used a decision tree for patients undergoing endoscopy, combined with estimates of long-term outcomes (e.g. incidence of colorectal cancer and subsequent morbidity and mortality) derived from University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research’s bowel cancer screening model. The model took a NHS perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% over a lifetime horizon. There were limitations in the data on the distribution of adenomas across risk categories and recurrence rates post polypectomy.ResultsThirty test accuracy studies were included: 24 for NBI, five for i-scan and three for FICE (two studies assessed two interventions). Polyp assessments made with high confidence were associated with higher sensitivity and endoscopists experienced in VCE achieved better results than those without experience. Two economic evaluations were included. NBI, i-scan and FICE are cost-saving strategies compared with histopathology and the number of quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar for histopathology and VCE. The correct surveillance interval would be given to 95% of patients with NBI, 94% of patients with FICE and 97% of patients with i-scan.LimitationsLimited evidence was available for i-scan and FICE and there was heterogeneity among the NBI studies. There is a lack of data on longer-term health outcomes of patients undergoing VCE for assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps.ConclusionsVCE technologies, using HD systems without magnification, could potentially be used for the real-time assessment of diminutive colorectal polyps, if endoscopists have adequate experience and training.Future workFuture research priorities include head-to-head randomised controlled trials of all three VCE technologies; more research on the diagnostic accuracy of FICE and i-scan (when used without magnification); further studies evaluating the impact of endoscopist experience and training on outcomes; studies measuring adverse effects, HRQoL and anxiety; and longitudinal data on colorectal cancer incidence, HRQoL and mortality.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037767.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BackgroundAs part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, independent Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) critically appraise the company submission. During the critical appraisal process the ERG may undertake analyses to explore uncertainties around the company’s model and their implications for decision-making. The ERG reports are a central component of the evidence considered by the NICE Technology Appraisal Committees (ACs) in their deliberations.ObjectiveThe aim of this research was to develop an understanding of the number and type of exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERGs within the STA process and to understand how these analyses are used by the NICE ACs in their decision-making.MethodsThe 100 most recently completed STAs with published guidance were selected for inclusion in the analysis. The documents considered were ERG reports, clarification letters, the first appraisal consultation document and the final appraisal determination. Over 400 documents were assessed in this study. The categories of types of exploratory analyses included fixing errors, fixing violations, addressing matters of judgement and the ERG-preferred base case. A content analysis of documents (documentary analysis) was undertaken to identify and extract relevant data, and narrative synthesis was then used to rationalise and present these data.ResultsThe level and type of detail in ERG reports and clarification letters varied considerably. The vast majority (93%) of ERG reports reported one or more exploratory analyses. The most frequently reported type of analysis in these 93 ERG reports related to the category ‘matters of judgement’, which was reported in 83 (89%) reports. The category ‘ERG base-case/preferred analysis’ was reported in 45 (48%) reports, the category ‘fixing errors’ was reported in 33 (35%) reports and the category ‘fixing violations’ was reported in 17 (18%) reports. The exploratory analyses performed were the result of issues raised by an ERG in its critique of the submitted economic evidence. These analyses had more influence on recommendations earlier in the STA process than later on in the process.LimitationsThe descriptions of analyses undertaken were often highly specific to a particular STA and could be inconsistent across ERG reports and thus difficult to interpret.ConclusionsEvidence Review Groups frequently conduct exploratory analyses to test or improve the economic evaluations submitted by companies as part of the STA process. ERG exploratory analyses often have an influence on the recommendations produced by the ACs.Future workMore in-depth analysis is needed to understand how ERGs make decisions regarding which exploratory analyses should be undertaken. More research is also needed to fully understand which types of exploratory analyses are most useful to ACs in their decision-making.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BackgroundRecent policy and guidance has focused on chemotherapy services being offered closer to home, but the clinical and economic implications of this are uncertain.ObjectivesTo compare the impact of delivering intravenous chemotherapy in different settings on a range of outcomes, including quality of life, safety and costs.DesignMultimethods approach: systematic review of clinical effectiveness, qualitative and cost-effectiveness studies; description of the patient pathway and brief survey of current provision; and development of a decision model to explore aspects of cost-effectiveness.SettingProvision of intravenous chemotherapy.ParticipantsChemotherapy patients.InterventionsSetting in which chemotherapy was administered (home, community or outpatient).Outcome measuresSafety, quality of life, preference, satisfaction, opinions/experiences, social functioning, clinical outcomes, costs and resource/organisational issues.Data sourcesSixteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to October 2013 for published and unpublished studies.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently screened potentially relevant studies, extracted data and quality assessed the included studies. Study validity was evaluated using appropriate quality assessment tools. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies were summarised narratively, and qualitative studies were synthesised using meta-ethnography.ResultsOf the 67 eligible studies, 25 were comparative, with nine including a concurrent economic evaluation. Although some of the 10 randomised trials were designed to minimise avoidable biases, slow recruitment rates and non-participation of eligible patients for setting-related reasons meant that trial sample sizes were small and populations were inherently biased to favour the home or community settings. There was little evidence to suggest differences between settings in terms of quality of life, clinical outcomes, psychological outcomes or adverse events. All nine economic evaluations were judged as having low or uncertain quality, providing limited evidence to draw overall conclusions. Most were cost–consequence analyses, presenting cost outcomes alongside trial results but deriving no summary measure of benefit. Poor resource use reporting and use of different perspectives across settings made results difficult to compare. Seventeen qualitative studies (450 participants) were judged as moderate to good quality, although all compared new or proposed services with existing outpatient facilities and biased samples were used. The three main lines of argument were barriers to service provision, satisfaction with chemotherapy and making compromises to maintain normality. Most patients made explicit trade-offs between the time and energy required for outpatient chemotherapy, which reduced quality of life, and an increased sense of safety. A patient pathway was described, informed by expert advice and a brief survey of NHS and private providers, which identified wide variation in the ways in which home and community chemotherapy was delivered. Considering limitations of the available data and variation in provision, cost-effectiveness modelling results were not robust and were viewed as exploratory only; the results were highly unstable.ConclusionsPrimary studies comparing settings for administering intravenous chemotherapy appear difficult to conduct. Consequently, few robust conclusions can be made about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative studies indicate that the patient time and energy required for outpatient chemotherapy reduces quality of life. A nested randomised controlled trial within a larger observational cohort of patients is proposed to enhance recruitment and improve generalisability of results. Future economic evaluations require detailed patient characteristic, resource use, cost and quality-of-life data, although their results are likely to have limited generalisability.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004851.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background: As part of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal process, independent evidence review groups (ERGs) critically appraise a company'ss u b m i s s i o n relating to a specific technology and indication. Objectives: To explore the type of additional exploratory analyses conducted by ERGs and their impact on the recommendations made by NICE. Methods: The 100 most recently completed single technology appraisals with published guidance were selected for inclusion. A content analysis of relevant documents was undertaken to identify and extract relevant data, and narrative synthesis was used to rationalize and present these data. Results: The types of exploratory analysis conducted in relation to companies' models were fixing errors, addressing violations, addressing matters of judgment, and the provision of a new, ERG-preferred base case. Ninety-three of the 100 ERG reports contained at least one of these analyses. The most frequently reported type of analysis in these 93 ERG reports related to the category

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ruxolitinib (Novartis) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for ruxolitinib within its licensed indication (the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with myelofibrosis), according to the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA289 issued in June 2013. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer's submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from two phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trials (RCTs): Controlled myelofibrosis study with oral JAK inhibitor treatment (COMFORT)-II compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (BAT), and COMFORT-I compared ruxolitinib with placebo. These RCTs demonstrated that ruxolitinib confers significant benefits in terms of spleen size reduction and improvement in symptom burden. In the COMFORT-II trial, a reduction in spleen volume of ≥35 % was achieved in 28 % of ruxolitinib-treated patients compared with 0 % of patients in the BAT group (p < 0.001) at 48 weeks, and there was a mean change in spleen volume of -30.1 versus +7.3 % (p < 0.001). Ruxolitinib also provided significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality-of-life compared with BAT and placebo. The ERG concluded that ruxolitinib appears to reduce splenomegaly and its associated symptoms, but that there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the manufacturer's cost-effectiveness estimates due to limitations in the manufacturer's model. The manufacturer's model did not allow for disease progression, did not accurately capture symptomatic relief, had several implausible or unjustified assumptions, and there were several parameter choices that the ERG found sub-optimal. ERG sensitivity analyses found that nearly all plausible adjustments to the model reduced the cost effectiveness of ruxolitinib. It is very likely that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,980/quality-adjusted life-year presented by the manufacturer represents a best-case scenario. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ruxolitinib was clinically effective, but could not be considered a cost effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adults with myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib is not recommended for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with primary myelofibrosis (also known as chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis), post-polycythaemia vera myelofibrosis and post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis in NICE TA289.