No abstract

No abstract

The review of clinical data related to the three drugs (including conventional treatment) compared with conventional treatment plus placebo indicates that in the short term (12-24 weeks), the three treatments are clinically effective in relation to assessment of ASAS, BASDAI and BASFI. Indirect comparisons of treatments were limited and did not show a significant difference in effectiveness between the three agents. The short-term economic assessment indicates that none of the three anti-TNF-alpha agents is likely to be considered cost-effective at current acceptability thresholds, with infliximab consistently the least favourable option. There is an absence of evidence concerning a number of limiting factors related to patients suffering from AS, the disease itself and its treatment. In order to obtain robust estimates of the longer term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha agents for AS, clinical trials that aim to address these limiting factors need to be conducted.

BackgroundChildren in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) require analgesia and sedation but both undersedation and oversedation can be harmful.ObjectiveEvaluation of intravenous (i.v.) clonidine as an alternative to i.v. midazolam.DesignMulticentre, double-blind, randomised equivalence trial.SettingTen UK PICUs.ParticipantsChildren (30 days to 15 years inclusive) weighing ≤ 50 kg, expected to require ventilation on PICU for > 12 hours.InterventionsClonidine (3 µg/kg loading then 0–3 µg/kg/hour) versus midazolam (200 µg/kg loading then 0–200 µg/kg/hour). Maintenance infusion rates adjusted according to behavioural assessment (COMFORT score). Both groups also received morphine.Main outcome measuresPrimary end point Adequate sedation defined by COMFORT score of 17–26 for ≥ 80% of the time with a ± 0.15 margin of equivalence.Secondary end points Percentage of time spent adequately sedated, increase in sedation/analgesia, recovery after sedation, side effects and safety data.ResultsThe study planned to recruit 1000 children. In total, 129 children were randomised, of whom 120 (93%) contributed data for the primary outcome. The proportion of children who were adequately sedated for ≥ 80% of the time was 21 of 61 (34.4%) – clonidine, and 18 of 59 (30.5%) – midazolam. The difference in proportions for clonidine–midazolam was 0.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.13 to 0.21], and, with the 95% CI including values outside the range of equivalence (–0.15 to 0.15), equivalence was not demonstrated; however, the study was underpowered. Non-inferiority of clonidine to midazolam was established, with the only values outside the equivalence range favouring clonidine. Times to reach maximum sedation and analgesia were comparable hazard ratios: 0.99 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.82) and 1.18 (95% CI 0.49 to 2.86), respectively. Percentage time spent adequately sedated was similar [medians clonidine 73.8% vs. midazolam 72.8%: difference in medians 0.66 (95% CI –5.25 to 7.24)]. Treatment failure was 12 of 64 (18.8%) on clonidine and 7 of 61 (11.5%) on midazolam [risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.88]. Proportions with withdrawal symptoms [28/60 (46.7%) vs. 30/58 (52.6%)] were similar (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.28), but a greater proportion required clinical intervention in those receiving midazolam [11/60 (18.3%) vs. 16/58 (27.6%) (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31)]. Post treatment, one child on clonidine experienced mild rebound hypertension, not requiring intervention. A higher incidence of inotropic support during the first 12 hours was required for those on clonidine [clonidine 5/45 (11.1%) vs. midazolam 3/52 (5.8%)] (RR 1.93 95% CI 0.49 to 7.61).ConclusionsClonidine is an alternative to midazolam. Our trial-based economic evaluation suggests that clonidine is likely to be a cost-effective sedative agent in the PICU in comparison with midazolam (probability of cost-effectiveness exceeds 50%). Rebound hypertension did not appear to be a significant problem with clonidine but, owing to its effects on heart rate, specific cardiovascular attention needs to be taken during the loading and early infusion phase. Neither drug in combination with morphine provided ideal sedation, suggesting that in unparalysed patients a third background agent is necessary. The disappointing recruitment rates reflect a reluctance of parents to provide consent when established on a sedation regimen, and reluctance of clinicians to allow sedation to be studied in unstable critically ill children. Future studies will require less exacting protocols allowing enhanced recruitment.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN02639863.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundThere is no single definitive test to identify prostate cancer in men. Biopsies are commonly used to obtain samples of prostate tissue for histopathological examination. However, this approach frequently misses cases of cancer, meaning that repeat biopsies may be necessary to obtain a diagnosis. The PROGENSA®prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) assay (Hologic Gen-Probe, Marlborough, MA, USA) and the Prostate Health Index (phi; Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA) are two new tests (a urine test and a blood test, respectively) that are designed to be used to help clinicians decide whether or not to recommend a repeat biopsy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PCA3 assay and the phi in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.Data sourcesMultiple publication databases and trial registers were searched in May 2014 (from 2000 to May 2014), including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Medion, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Review methodsThe assessment of clinical effectiveness involved three separate systematic reviews, namely reviews of the analytical validity, the clinical validity of these tests and the clinical utility of these tests. The assessment of cost-effectiveness comprised a systematic review of full economic evaluations and the development of a de novo economic model.SettingThe perspective of the evaluation was the NHS in England and Wales.ParticipantsMen suspected of having prostate cancer for whom the results of an initial prostate biopsy were negative or equivocal.InterventionsThe use of the PCA3 score or phi in combination with existing tests (including histopathology results, prostate-specific antigen level and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical judgement.ResultsIn addition to documents published by the manufacturers, six studies were identified for inclusion in the analytical validity review. The review identified issues concerning the precision of the PCA3 assay measurements. It also highlighted issues relating to the storage requirements and stability of samples intended for analysis using the phi assay. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria for the clinical validity review. These studies reported results for 10 different clinical comparisons. There was insufficient evidence to enable the identification of appropriate test threshold values for use in a clinical setting. In addition, the implications of adding either the PCA3 assay or the phi to clinical assessment were not clear. Furthermore, the addition of the PCA3 assay or the phi to clinical assessment plus magnetic resonance imaging was not found to improve discrimination. No published papers met the inclusion criteria for either the clinical utility review or the cost-effectiveness review. The results from the cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that using either the PCA3 assay or the phi in the NHS was not cost-effective.LimitationsThe main limitations of the systematic review of clinical validity are that the review conclusions are over-reliant on findings from one study, the descriptions of clinical assessment vary widely within reviewed studies and many of the reported results for the clinical validity outcomes do not include either standard errors or confidence intervals.ConclusionsThe clinical benefit of using the PCA3 assay or the phi in combination with existing tests, scans and clinical judgement has not yet been confirmed. The results from the cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that the use of these tests in the NHS would not be cost-effective.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009595.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.