No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. The TRIAL-STIM randomised controlled trial found no evidence that a spinal cord stimulation screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes compared to a no trial screening approach.

BackgroundIn England and Wales the two most likely places of death are hospitals (52%) and nursing homes (22%). The Department of Health published its National End of Life Care Strategy in July 2008 (Department of Health.End of Life Care Strategy: Promoting High Quality Care For All Adults at the End of Life. London: Department of Health; 2008) to improve the provision of care, recommending the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP).AimThe original aim was to assess the impact of the LCP on care in two settings: nursing homes and intensive care units (ICUs).DesignQualitative, matched case study.MethodsData were collected from 12 ICUs and 11 nursing homes in England: (1) documentary analysis of provider end-of-life care policy documents; (2) retrospective analysis of 10 deaths in each location using written case notes; (3) interviews with staff about end-of-life care; (4) observation of the care of dying patients; (5) analysis of the case notes pertaining to the observed patient’s death; (6) interview with a member of staff providing care during the observed period; (7) interview with a bereaved relative present during the observation; (8) economic analysis focused on the observed patients; and (9) strict inclusion and selection criteria for nursing homes and ICUs applied to match sites on LCP use/non-LCP use.ResultsIt was not possible to meet the stated aims of the study. Although 23 sites were recruited, observations were conducted in only 12 sites (eight using the LCP). A robust comparison on the basis of LCP use could not, therefore, take place. Although nurses in both settings reported that the LCP supported good care, the LCP was interpreted and used differently across sites, with the greatest variation in ICUs. Although not able to address the original research question, this study provides an unprecedented insight into care at the end of life in two different settings. The majority of nursing homes had implemented some kind of ‘pathway’ for dying patients and most homes participating in the observational stage were using the LCP. However, training in care of the dying was variable and specific issues were identified relating to general practitioner involvement, the use of anticipatory drugs and the assessment of consciousness and the swallowing reflex. In ICUs, end-of-life care was inextricably linked with the withdrawal of active treatment and controlling the pace of death. The data highlight how the decision to withdraw was made and, importantly, how relatives were involved in this process. The fact that most patients died soon after the withdrawal of interventions was reported to limit the appropriateness of the LCP in this setting.LimitationsAlthough the recruitment of matched sites was achieved, variable site participation resulted in a skewed sample. Issues with the sample size and a blurring of LCP use and non-use limit the extent to which the ambitious aims of the study were achieved.ConclusionsThis study makes a unique contribution to understanding the complexity of care at the end of life in two very different settings. More research is needed into the ways in which an organisational culture can be created within which the principles of good end-of-life care become translated into practice.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundTreatment with radioactive iodine is effective for many patients with progressive, locally advanced or metastatic, differentiated thyroid cancer. However, some patients become refractory to treatment. These types of patients are considered to have radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC).MethodsWe searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1999 through January 2017. Reference lists of included studies and ongoing trial registries were also searched. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective observational studies, and systematic reviews/indirect comparisons were eligible for inclusion. In the absence of direct clinical trial evidence comparing lenvatinib versus sorafenib, we assessed the feasibility of conducting an indirect comparison to obtain estimates of the relative efficacy and safety of these two treatments.ResultsOf 2364 citations, in total, 93 papers reporting on 2 RCTs (primary evidence), 9 observational studies and 13 evidence reviews (supporting evidence) were identified. Compared to placebo, RCT evidence demonstrated improvements with lenvatinib or sorafenib in median progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response rate (ORR). Overall survival (OS) was confounded by high treatment crossover (≥75%) in both trials. Adverse events (AEs) were more common with lenvatinib or sorafenib than with placebo but the most common AEs associated with each drug differed. Primarily due to differences in the survival risk profiles of patients in the placebo arms of the RCTs, we considered it inappropriate to indirectly compare the effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib. ORR and AE findings for lenvatinib and sorafenib from the supporting evidence were broadly in line with RCT evidence. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data were limited.ConclusionsLenvatinib and sorafenib are more efficacious than placebo (a proxy for best supportive care) for treating RR-DTC. Uncertainty surrounds the extent of the impact on OS and HRQoL. Lenvatinib could not reliably be compared with sorafenib. Choice of treatment is therefore likely to depend on an individual patient’s circumstances.

Second intravenous immunoglobulin dose in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome with poor prognosis (SID-GBS): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurology, 20(4), 275-283.

An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address.Paying by credit card You can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume.How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTAA pilot randomised controlled trial in intensive care patients comparing 7 days' treatment with empirical antibiotics with 2 days' treatment for hospital-acquired infection of unknown origin NIHR Health Technology Assessment programmeThe Health Technology Assessment (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 research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' . The H...

Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine suitability for a permanent implant, its evidence base is limited. The recent TRIAL-STIM study (a randomized controlled trial at three centers in the United Kingdom) found no evidence that an SCS screening trial strategy provides superior patient outcomes as compared with a no trial approach. As part of the TRIAL-STIM study, we undertook a nested qualitative study to ascertain patients' preferences in relation to undergoing a screening trial or not. Materials and Methods:We interviewed 31 patients sampled from all three centers and both study arms (screening trial/no trial) prior to SCS implantation, and 23 of these patients again following implantation (eight patients were lost to follow-up). Interviews were undertaken by telephone and audio-recorded, then transcripts were subject to thematic analysis. In addition, participants were asked to state their overall preference for a one-stage (no screening trial) versus two-stage (screening trial) implant procedure on a five-point Likert scale, before and after implantation.Results: Emergent themes favoured the option for a one-stage SCS procedure. Themes identified include: saving time (off work, in hospital, attending appointments), avoiding the worry about having "loose wires" in the two-stage procedure, having only one period of recovery, and saving NHS resources. Participants' rated preferences show similar support for a one-stage procedure without a screening trial.

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.