This paper emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the prevalence, incidence and cumulative incidence of inhibitors in haemophilia A. Incidence and cumulative incidence data will include patients with transient inhibitors or whose inhibitors have been eliminated by treatment. As these will not be included in prevalence data, prevalence studies will tend to give rise to lower figures than incidence studies. As a result, the most accurate estimates of the true risk of inhibitor development comes from prospective studies of newly diagnosed haemophiliacs who are tested regularly for the presence of inhibitors. This paper reports a systematic review of the best available evidence relating to the epidemiology of inhibitors in haemophilia A. Cohort studies, registry data reporting incidence or prevalence of inhibitors in patients with haemophilia A, and prospective studies of factor VIII (FVIII) in the treatment of previously untreated patients which reported the development of inhibitors as an outcome, were included in the review. The overall prevalence of inhibitors in unselected haemophiliac populations was found to be 5-7%. The cumulative risk of inhibitor development varied (0-39%). Incidence and prevalence were substantially higher in patients with severe haemophilia. Studies of patients using a single plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII) preparation reported lower inhibitor incidence than those using multiple pdFVIII preparations or single recombinant FVIII preparations. Incidence data should be used to estimate the likely demand for treatments aimed at eliminating inhibitors, whereas the best estimates of the overall burden to the National Health Service (NHS) of treating bleeding episodes in patients with continuing inhibitors will come from prevalence studies.

PurposeTo identify the domains of quality of life important to people with mental health problems.MethodA systematic review of qualitative research undertaken with people with mental health problems using a framework synthesis.ResultsWe identified six domains: well-being and ill-being; control, autonomy and choice; self-perception; belonging; activity; and hope and hopelessness. Firstly, symptoms or ‘ill-being’ were an intrinsic aspect of quality of life for people with severe mental health problems. Additionally, a good quality of life was characterised by the feeling of being in control (particularly of distressing symptoms), autonomy and choice; a positive self-image; a sense of belonging; engagement in meaningful and enjoyable activities; and feelings of hope and optimism. Conversely, a poor quality life, often experienced by those with severe mental health difficulties, was characterized by feelings of distress; lack of control, choice and autonomy; low self-esteem and confidence; a sense of not being part of society; diminished activity; and a sense of hopelessness and demoralization.ConclusionsGeneric measures fail to address the complexity of quality of life measurement and the broad range of domains important to people with mental health problems.

This report should be referenced as follows:Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(34). This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/). Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inEditorial 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 or, commissioned/managed through the Methodology research programme (MRP), 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. To strengthen the evidence base for health research, the MRP oversees and implements the evolving strategy for high quality methodological research. In addition to the MRC and NIHR funding partners, the MRP takes into account the needs of other stakeholders including the devolved administrations, industry R&D, and regulatory/advisory agencies and other public bodies. The MRP funds investigator-led and needsled research proposals from across the UK. In addition to the standard MRC and RCUK terms and conditions, projects commissioned/managed by the MRP are expected to provide a detailed report on the research findings and may publish the findings in the HTA journal, if supported by NIHR funds.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 o...

ObjectivesRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).Data sourcesThe following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.MethodsNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsSixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.ConclusionsbDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

This paper reports a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of treatment options in patients with haemophilia A with inhibitors. As very little relevant published evidence was identified, an economic modelling exercise was undertaken to calculate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies in the treatment of high-responding haemophilia A patients with inhibitors. A decision analysis approach was used to model the expected lifetime clinical outcomes and costs of the more common regimens currently used in UK in treating severe haemophiliacs with inhibitors. The model attempts to reflect the outcomes of clinical events, costs and life expectancy for each different treatment regimen for haemophilic boys with inhibitors who are high responders (defined as inhibitor level >/=10 BU) throughout their life. The basic model structure is centred on a Markov decision process, which was used to simulate, at quarter-yearly intervals, the movement through discrete health states and their complications. The model allows a comparison of cost-effectiveness between three immune tolerance induction (ITI) regimens (Bonn, Mälmo and Low-Dose protocols) and against a relevant 'on-demand' (OD) regimen. It also shows the cost-effectiveness of different OD regimens using different bypassing agents. The results of the economic modelling indicate that treating haemophilia A patients who have high-responding inhibitors OD with recombinant activated factor VII is cost-effective compared to treatment with activated prothrombin complex concentrates. However, when OD treatment regimens are compared with the three ITI protocols, the Malmö ITI protocol is the preferred treatment strategy, generating more quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and less cost than either an OD regimen or the Bonn or Low-Dose ITI protocols.

Cost-effectiveness models that present results in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year for health technologies are used to inform policy decisions in many parts of the world. Health state utilities (HSUs) are required to calculate the quality-adjusted life-years. Even when clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of health technologies collect data on HSUs to populate a cost-effectiveness model, which rarely happens, analysts typically need to identify at least some additional HSUs from alternative sources. When possible, HSUs are identified by a systematic review of the literature, but, again, this rarely happens. In 2014, ISPOR established a Good Practices for Outcome Research Task Force to address the use of HSUs in costeffectiveness models. This task force report provides recommendations for researchers who identify, review, and synthesize HSUs for use in cost-effectiveness models; analysts who use the results in models; and reviewers who critically appraise the suitability and validity of the HSUs selected for use in models. The associated Minimum Reporting Standards of Systematic Review of Utilities for Cost-Effectiveness checklist created by the task force provides criteria to judge the appropriateness of the HSUs selected for use in costeffectiveness models and is suitable for use in different international settings.

The checklist is a comprehensive appraisal tool that can assist health sciences librarians and others in choosing search filters. The checklist reports filter design methods and search performance measures, such as sensitivity and precision. The checklist can also aid filter developers by indicating information on core methods that should be reported to help assess filter suitability. The generalizability of the checklist for non-methods filters remains to be explored.

Abstract. Pandor A, Ara RM, Tumur I, Wilkinson AJ, Paisley S, Duenas A, Durrington PN, Chilcott J (University of Sheffield, Sheffield; and University of Manchester, Manchester; UK). Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Intern Med 2009; 265: 568-580.Objectives. To study the evidence on the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy for the treatment of primary (heterozygous familial and non-familial) hypercholesterolaemia. Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Methods. Eleven electronic bibliographic databases covering the biomedical, scientific and grey literature were searched from inception and supplemented by contact with experts in the field. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of RCTs, with a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks, which compared ezetimibe monotherapy (10 mg per day) with placebo.Results. In the absence of data from clinical outcome trials, surrogate endpoints such as changes in lipid concentrations were used as indicators of clinical outcomes. A meta-analysis of eight randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trials (all 12 weeks) showed that ezetimibe monotherapy was associated with a statistically significant mean reduction in LDL cholesterol (from baseline to endpoint) of )18.58%, (95% CI: )19.67 to )17.48, P < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Significant (P < 0.00001) changes were also found in total cholesterol ()13.46%, 95% CI: )14.22 to )12.70), HDL cholesterol (3.00%, 95% CI: 2.06-3.94) and triglyceride levels ()8.06%, 95% CI: )10.92 to )5.20). Ezetimibe monotherapy appeared to be well tolerated with a safety profile similar to placebo.Conclusions. In a meta-analysis restricted to short-term trials in hypercholesterolaemia, significant potentially favourable changes in lipid and lipoprotein levels relative to baseline occurred with ezetimibe monotherapy. Further long-term studies with cardiovascular and other clinical outcome data are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe more fully.