The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. NHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a very reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 30-40 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £300 per volume. Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can only be purchased for the current or forthcoming volume. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. Declared competing interests of authors: K Stein received an unrestricted grant from Schering Plough (UK) to carry out work on the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for hepatitis C in 2000. KS is also a member of the editorial board for Health Technology Assessment, but he was not involved in the editorial process for this report. M Cramp sits on hepatitis C advisory boards for Schering Plough, Gilead and Roche. He has received unrestricted educational grants from Roche and Schering Plough to support research and service development. He has been awarded an NHS R&D grant looking at injecting drug users who do not have hepatitis C virus infection. J Thompson Coon received a grant from the Hepatitis C Trust to conduct a systematic review of complementary and alternative therapies for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. HTA Published September 2007This report should be referenced as follows: NIHR Health Technology Assessment ProgrammeT he Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, now part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, man...

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 HTA Programme is needs led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of projects. First is the commissioned route. Suggestions for research are actively sought from people working in the NHS, from the public and consumer groups and from professional bodies such as royal colleges and NHS trusts. These suggestions are carefully prioritised by panels of independent experts (including NHS service users). The HTA Programme then commissions the research by competitive tender. Second, the HTA Programme provides grants for clinical trials for researchers who identify research questions. These are assessed for importance to patients and the NHS, and scientific rigour. Third, through its Technology Assessment Report (TAR) call-off contract, the HTA Programme commissions bespoke reports, principally for NICE, but also for other policy-makers. TARs bring together evidence on the value of specific technologies. Some HTA research projects, including TARs, may take only months, others need several years. They can cost from as little as £40,000 to over £1 million, and may involve synthesising existing evidence, undertaking a trial, or other research collecting new data to answer a research problem. The final reports from HTA projects are peer reviewed by a number of independent expert referees before publication in the widely read journal series Health Technology Assessment. Criteria for inclusion in the HTA journal series Reports are published in the HTA journal series if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA Programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the referees 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. The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned by the HTA programme as project number 07/64/01. The protocol was agreed in October 2007. The assessment report began editorial review in April 2008 and was accepted for publication in August 2008. As the funder, by devising a commissioning brief, the HTA programme specified the research question and study design. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collecti...

Using a decision-analytic model, we evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in individuals with cirrhosis. Separate cohorts with cirrhosis due to alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis B and hepatitis C were simulated. Results were also combined to approximate a mixed aetiology population. Comparisons were made between a variety of surveillance algorithms using a-foetoprotein (AFP) assay and/or ultrasound at 6-and 12-monthly intervals. Parameter estimates were obtained from comprehensive literature reviews. Uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In the mixed aetiology cohort, 6-monthly AFP þ ultrasound was predicted to be the most effective strategy. The model estimates that, compared with no surveillance, this strategy may triple the number of people with operable tumours at diagnosis and almost halve the number of people who die from HCC. The cheapest strategy employed triage with annual AFP (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): d20 700 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of d30 000 per QALY the most cost-effective strategy used triage with 6-monthly AFP (ICER: d27 600 per QALY gained). The addition of ultrasound to this strategy increased the ICER to d60 100 per QALY gained. Surveillance appears most cost-effective in individuals with hepatitis B-related cirrhosis, potentially due to younger age at diagnosis of cirrhosis. Our results suggest that, in a UK NHS context, surveillance of individuals with cirrhosis for HCC should be considered effective and cost-effective. The economic efficiency of different surveillance strategies is predicted to vary markedly according to cirrhosis aetiology.

Temozolomide is an effective therapy in GBM for prolonging survival and delaying progression as part of primary therapy without impacting on QoL and with a low incidence of early adverse events. The frequency and severity of late adverse events is unknown. In recurrent GBM it improves time to progression but not overall survival. These findings are from three good quality but non-blinded RCTs of over 900 patients in total.