ObjectivesTo systematically review (1) The effect of obstetric unit (OU) closures on maternal and neonatal outcomes and (2) The association between travel distance/time to an OU and maternal and neonatal outcomes.DesignSystematic review of any quantitative studies with a comparison group.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health and grey literature were searched.MethodsEligible studies explored the impact of closure of an OU or the effect of travel distance/time on prespecified maternal or neonatal outcomes. Only studies of women giving birth in high-income countries with universal health coverage of maternity services comparable to the UK were included. Identification of studies, extraction of data and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by at least two reviewers independently. The risk of bias checklist was based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis and synthesis was narrative, with key findings tabulated.Results31 studies met the inclusion criteria. There was some evidence to suggest an increase in babies born before arrival following OU closures and/or associated with longer travel distances or time. This may be associated with an increased risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality, but this finding was not consistent across studies. Evidence on other maternal and neonatal outcomes was limited but did not suggest worse outcomes after closures or with longer travel times/distances. Interpretation of findings for some studies was hampered by concerns around how accurately exposures were measured, and/or a lack of adjustment for confounders or temporal changes.ConclusionIt is not possible to conclude from this review whether OU closure, increased travel distances or times are associated with worse outcomes for the mother or the baby.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017078503.

A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of lurasidone, brexpiprazole and cariprazine (selected because of a shared safety profile) with each other or placebo in adult patients with schizophrenia. Key outcomes included: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores and cardiovascular and metabolic parameters. A feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for inclusion in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Random effects models were used. In total, 1138 records were identified and 19 RCTs contributed to the NMA. Lurasidone doses of 160 mg performed best in terms of change in PANSS and CGI-S scores at 6 weeks, with stronger evidence when compared with brexpiprazole than cariprazine. The safety outcomes were variable; for all treatments, the 95% credible intervals usually contained 'no difference'. Active treatments were associated with lower odds of discontinuation due to any cause, and higher odds of experiencing any adverse event. Lurasidone was comparable to brexpiprazole and cariprazine for efficacy and safety outcomes assessed at 6 weeks, with the 160 mg dose being superior for the change in PANSS and CGI-S outcomes. The lurasidone results were relatively consistent across doses compared with brexpiprazole and cariprazine.

myCOPD is a digital tool designed for people to manage their chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It requires a device with an internet connection and incorporates tools for education, self-management, symptom tracking and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). myCOPD was selected for medical technologies guidance by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2020. The External Assessment Group (EAG) critiqued the company’s submission. The evidence comprised four clinical studies (three randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and one observational study) and real-world evidence from 22 documents. The RCTs had small sample sizes, limiting the power to detect statistically significant differences and to match patient characteristics across arms. The company produced two de novo models for two subgroups of people with COPD; people discharged from hospital with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) and people referred for PR. After the EAG updated input parameters and adjusted the model structures, cost savings of £86,297 per clinical commissioning group (CCG) compared with standard care were estimated for the AECOPD population, with myCOPD predicted to be cost saving in 74% of iterations. Cost savings of £22,779 per CCG were estimated for the PR population (with the assumption that the CCG had an existing myCOPD licence), with myCOPD predicted to be cost saving in 86% of the iterations. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee concluded that although myCOPD has the potential to help manage COPD in adults, further evidence is required to address uncertainties in the current evidence base. NICE published this as Medical Technology Guidance 68 (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). myCOPD for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2022. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg68/ ). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-023-00811-x.