Background Early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions are intensive interventions for autistic children that are often delivered on a one-to-one basis for 20–50 hours per week. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions for autistic children, based on current evidence. Methods A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of an early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based intervention for autistic children. An economic analysis included a review of existing analyses and the development of a new model. Results Twenty studies were included in the clinical review. Individual participant data were retrieved from 15 of these studies. Results favoured the interventions when assessing adaptive behaviour after 2 years compared with treatment as usual/eclectic interventions (mean difference 7.00, 95% confidence interval 1.95 to 12.06). In analyses of cognitive ability (intelligence quotient), results favoured the interventions by approximately 10 points after 1 year (mean difference 9.16, 95% confidence interval 4.38 to 13.93) and 2 years (mean difference 14.13, 95% confidence interval 9.16 to 19.10). Evidence for other outcomes was limited and meta-analyses were generally inconclusive. There was no evidence that the effect of the interventions varied with characteristics of the children, but data were limited. Adopting a £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold, the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions would need to generate larger benefits or cost savings to be cost-effective. Adopting a public sector perspective and making pessimistic assumptions about long-term effects, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based therapy compared with treatment as usual is £189,122 per quality-adjusted life-year. When optimistic assumptions are made, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is £46,768 per quality-adjusted life-year. Scenario analyses indicated that these interventions can potentially be cost-effective if long-term improvements persist into adulthood, or if they have significant impact on educational placement. Care should be taken when interpreting these scenarios owing to the limited data. Limitations All included studies were at risk of bias, there was substantial heterogeneity and effects varied considerably across studies. The effect of intervention on autism symptom severity, language development and school placement remains uncertain because of the limited data. The long-term effects are unclear owing to a lack of follow-up data. Conclusions This review found limited evidence that early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions may improve cognitive ability and adaptive behaviour, but the long-term impact of the interventions remains unknown. The economic analysis is constrained by the limited effectiveness evidence, but suggests that these interventions are unlikely to be cost-effective unless clear long-term benefits, or a substantial change in which schools children attend, can be identified. Future work Further studies into the effectiveness of early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions may be warranted if they include well-defined, alternative interventions as comparators and collect relevant outcomes. Consideration should be given to future studies that not only address whether or not early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions are clinically effective, but also aim to identify which components of early intensive applied behaviour analysis-based interventions might drive effectiveness. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068303. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Most symptoms preceded clinical diagnosis by only a few months. Symptom-based investigation would lengthen lead times and result in earlier stage at diagnosis in a small proportion of cases, but would be far less effective than standard screening targeted at smokers.

Screening 111 consecutive patients with Graves' hyperthyroidism revealed AGA in 14%, anti-tTG in 2% and IgA deficiency in 3%. Two patients were known to have CD. Screening detected three new cases. The prevalence of CD in patients with Graves' hyperthyroidism was 4.5% as compared with 0.9% in matched healthy controls. Routine screening for CD should be considered.

BackgroundSeveral biologic therapies are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who have had an inadequate response to two or more synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). NICE does not specifically recommend switching from one biologic to another, and only ustekinumab (UST; STELARA®, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA) is recommended after anti-tumour necrosis factor failure. Secukinumab (SEC; COSENTYX®, Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and certolizumab pegol (CZP; CIMZIA®, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) have not previously been appraised by NICE.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP and SEC for treating active PsA in adults in whom DMARDs have been inadequately effective.DesignSystematic review and economic model.Data sourcesFourteen databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 2016 for CZP and SEC studies; update searches were run to identify new comparator studies.Review methodsClinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to investigate the relative efficacy of SEC and CZP compared with comparator therapies. A de novo model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEC and CZP compared with the other relevant comparators. The model was specified for three subpopulations, in accordance with the NICE scope (patients who have taken one prior DMARD, patients who have taken two or more prior DMARDs and biologic-experienced patients). The models were further classified according to the level of concomitant psoriasis.ResultsNineteen eligible RCTs were included in the systematic review of short-term efficacy. Most studies were well conducted and were rated as being at low risk of bias. Trials of SEC and CZP demonstrated clinically important efficacy in all key clinical outcomes. At 3 months, patients taking 150 mg of SEC [relative risk (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 15.43] or CZP (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.56) were more likely to be responders than patients taking placebo. The NMA results for the biologic-naive subpopulations indicated that the effectiveness of SEC and CZP relative to other biologics and each other was uncertain. Limited data were available for the biologic-experienced subpopulation. Longer-term evidence suggested that these newer biologics reduced disease progression, with the benefits being similar to those seen for older biologics. The de novo model generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three subpopulations and three psoriasis subgroups. In subpopulation 1 (biologic-naive patients who had taken one prior DMARD), CZP was the optimal treatment in the moderate–severe psoriasis subgroup and 150 mg of SEC was optimal in the subgroups of patients with mild–moderate psoriasis or no concomitant psoriasis. In subpopulation 2 (biologic-naive patients who had taken two or more prior DMARDs), etanercept (ETN; ENBREL®, Pfizer Inc., New York City, NY, USA) is likely to be the optimal treatment in all subgroups. The ICERs for SEC and CZP versus best supportive care are in the region of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In subpopulation 3 (biologic-experienced patients or patients in whom biologics are contraindicated), UST is likely to be the optimal treatment (ICERs are in the region of £21,000–27,000 per QALY). The optimal treatment in subpopulation 2 was sensitive to the choice of evidence synthesis model. In subpopulations 2 and 3, results were sensitive to the algorithm for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index costs. The optimal treatment is not sensitive to the use of biosimilar prices for ETN and infliximab (REMICADE®, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, NJ, USA).ConclusionsSEC and CZP may be an effective use of NHS resources, depending on the subpopulation and subgroup of psoriasis severity. There are a number of limitations to this assessment, driven mainly by data availability.Future workTrials are needed to inform effectiveness of biologics in biologic-experienced populations.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033357.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.