Aims: To estimate the relative treatment effect between the fixed-ratio combinations iGlarLixi and IDegLira (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist with basal insulin) in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials followed by an indirect treatment comparison was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the available fixed-ratio combinations. Main outcomes were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change and target achievement [<6.5% and <7.0% (<48 and <53 mmol/mol)], fasting plasma glucose, self-monitored plasma glucose, body weight, and incidence and rate of hypoglycaemia. Results: From 4850 abstracts screened, 78 qualified for full-text article review and two randomized controlled trials were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two studies. The mean difference at 26 weeks between IDegLira and iGlarLixi was −0.36 (95% credible intervals −0.58, −0.14) % [−3.9 (−6.3, −1.5) mmol/mol] for HbA1c and −1.0 (−1.6, −0.4) mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose. No significant differences were found in HbA1c target attainment, preprandial or postprandial selfmonitored plasma glucose, or body weight change. Formal comparisons of hypoglycaemia were limited by differences in definitions between the studies: in non-sulphonylurea users, incidence was 28% for IDegLira ('confirmed' at ≤3.1 mmol/ L); for iGlarLixi, incidence was 9% ('documented symptomatic' at <3.0 mmol/L). Conclusions: Results of this indirect treatment comparison using two studies suggest iGlarLixi and IDegLira appear to offer similar benefits for HbA1c target achievement. However, the findings suggest differences in other glycaemia results and hypoglycaemia, which may reflect differences in study design and titration approaches. * At time study was conducted.

This study shows the potential benefits of head massage by modulating the cardiac autonomic nervous system through an increase in the total variability and a shift toward higher parasympathetic nervous system activity. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample size and multiple sessions of massage are needed to substantiate these findings.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to epidural analgesia in adults undergoing open hepatic resection. Background: Effective pain management in patients undergoing open hepatic resection is often achieved with epidural analgesia. However, associated risks have prompted investigation of alternative analgesic methods in this patient population. Methods: A comprehensive systematic literature review via Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases from inception until December 2, 2017 was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. Abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by 2 investigators. Odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using RevMan 5.3. Results: Four randomized controlled trials with 278 patients were identified. All studies compared the use of PCA to epidural, with differing regimens. Pooled MD and 95% confidence interval for pain score were higher for PCA at rest 24 hours postoperatively (0.59 [0.30, 0.88]), and with movement at 48 hours postoperatively (0.95 [0.31, 1.60]. Pooled MD for hospital length of stay was 1.23 days (−2.72, 5.19). Pooled OR was 0.68 (0.36, 1.3) and 0.24 (0.04, 1.36) for overall and analgesia-related complications, respectively. Need for blood transfusion had a pooled OR of 1.14 (0.31, 4.18). Conclusions: Epidural analgesia was observed to be superior to PCA for pain control in patients undergoing open hepatic resection, with no significant difference in hospital length of stay, complications, or transfusion requirements. Thus, epidural analgesia should be the preferred method for the management of postoperative pain in this patient population.

Objectives Cancer diagnoses at later stages are associated with a decrease in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Health state utility values (HSUVs) reflect preference-based HRQOL and can vary based on cancer type, stage, treatment, and disease progression. Detecting and treating cancer at earlier stages may lead to improved HRQOL, which is important for value assessments. We describe published HSUVs by cancer type and stage. Methods A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE®, EconLit, and gray literature to identify studies published from January 1999 to September 2019 that reported HSUVs by cancer type and stage. Disutility values were calculated from differences in reported HSUVs across cancer stages. Results From 13,872 publications, 27 were eligible for evidence synthesis. The most frequent cancer types were breast (n = 9), lung (n = 5), colorectal (n = 4), and cervical cancer (n = 3). Mean HSUVs decreased with increased cancer stage, with consistently lower values seen in stage IV or later-stage cancer across studies (e.g., − 0.74, − 0.44, and − 0.51 for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer, respectively). Disutility values were highest between later-stage (metastatic or stage IV) cancers compared to earlier-stage (localized or stage I–III) cancers. Conclusions This study provides a summary of HSUVs across different cancer types and stages that can inform economic evaluations. Despite the large variation in HSUVs overall, a consistent decline in HSUVs can be seen in the later stages, including stage IV. These findings indicate substantial impairment on individuals’ quality of life and suggest value in early detection and intervention.

Objective. We aimed to broaden understanding of the perspectives of persons with arthritis on their use of wearables to self-monitor physical activity, through a synthesis of evidence from qualitative studies.Methods. We conducted a systematic search of 5 databases (including Medline, CINAHL, and Embase) from inception to 2018. Eligible studies qualitatively examined the use of wearables from the perspectives of persons with arthritis. All relevant data were extracted and coded inductively in a thematic synthesis.Results. Of 4,358 records retrieved, 7 articles were included. Participants used a wearable during research participation in 3 studies and as part of usual self-management in 2 studies. In remaining studies, participants were shown a prototype they did not use. Themes identified were: 1) the potential to change dynamics in patient-health professional communication: articles reported a common opinion that sharing wearable data could possibly enable patients to improve communication with health professionals; 2) wearable-enabled self-awareness, whether a benefit or downside: there was agreement that wearables could increase self-awareness of physical activity levels, but perspectives were mixed on whether this increased self-awareness motivated more physical activity; 3) designing a wearable for everyday life: participants generally felt that the technology was not obtrusive in their everyday lives, but certain prototypes may possibly embarrass or stigmatize persons with arthritis.Conclusion. Themes hint toward an ethical dimension, as participants perceive that their use of wearables may positively or negatively influence their capacity to shape their everyday self-management. We suggest ethical questions pertinent to the use of wearables in arthritis self-management for further exploration.

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) versus IDegAsp, a co-formulation of basal insulin degludec 100 U/mL with rapidacting insulin aspart. Materials and Methods:A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Outcomes from eligible RCTs were compared by an indirect treatment comparison using a Bayesian framework. Subanalyses of Japanese and international trials were performed.Results: Eight RCTs (duration 26-30 weeks) were included. Mean difference in HbA1c change with iGlarLixi exceeded that for IDegAsp: À0.64 (95% credible interval À1.01, À0.28) %-units (À7.0 [À11.0, À3.1] mmol/mol) for all trials, À0.39 (À0.55, À0.23) %-units (À4.3 [À6.0, À2.5] mmol/mol) for international, and À0.88 (À1.11, À0.64) %-units (À9.6 [À12.1, À7.0] mmol/mol) for Japanese trials. HbA1c target achievement (<7.0%-units [<53 mmol/mol]) was greater for iGlarLixi in all trials (odds ratio 2. 50 [1.06, 5.56]) and Japanese trials (2.17 [1.27, 3.70]), but not in international trials (2.17 [0.42, 11.11]). Analyses suggesting differences in mean postmeal self-measured plasma glucose were significantly lower by 1.0-2.0 mmol/L (18-36 mg/dL) with iGlarLixi in all analyses. Bodyweight change was more favourable (1-2 kg) for iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp for all analyses (P < 0.05). Comparisons of hypoglycaemia were inconclusive owing to differences in definitions between studies. Adverse events were more frequent with iGlarLixi because of gastrointestinal intolerance.Conclusions: iGlarLixi appears to offer clinical benefit in glucose control and bodyweight change in people needing both basal and meal-time intervention.

No abstract

Background: Direct injection of corticosteroids into the joint is a standard treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the treatment is somewhat controversial with regard to the benefit of both single and repeated injections; evidence that they are beneficial comes from small studies that show only modest improvements. The aim of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term clinical efficacy and safety of hylan G-F 20 versus intra-articular corticosteroids (IACS) for the treatment of pain in knee OA using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods: Based on a pre-specified protocol, MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 2018 to identify randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the included studies. Hylan G-F 20 and IACS were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Efficacy was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, and at the final follow-up for safety outcomes. A pain hierarchy was used to select 1 pain outcome per study. Results: Forty-two trials were included for analysis. The network meta-analysis of pain showed that hylan G-F 20 may be equivalent to IACS in the short-term, but by 6 months the benefit relative to IACS was statistically significant, standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): –0.13 (–0.26, –0.01). There were no statistical differences in adverse events. Conclusions: Hylan G-F 20 may perform better in relieving pain at 6 months post-injection compared to IACS. Both agents were relatively well tolerated, with no clear differences in safety.