Notes
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned by the HTA programme as project number 01/43/01. The contractual start date was in June 2003. The draft report began editorial review in May 2008 and was accepted for publication in January 2009. 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 collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.
Declared competing interests of authors
None
Permissions
Copyright statement
© 2009 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. This monograph may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NETSCC, Health Technology Assessment, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
2009 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO
Chapter 1 Introduction
Background
Acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema is a common medical emergency and accounts for an estimated 15,000–20,000 acute hospital admissions per annum in the UK. Decompensated heart failure is one of the leading causes of hospitalisation in the USA where it accounts for 6.5 million hospital days each year;1 it is now the leading reason for hospital admission in patients over 65 years. 2 It is associated with a high (5–15%) in-hospital mortality rate,3,4 especially when secondary to acute myocardial infarction (MI)5 or requiring critical care. 6 Conventional treatments include oxygen, diuretic, opioid and vasodilator therapy. Patients who fail to respond to such treatment have traditionally required intubation and ventilation with the associated potential complications. 7–9
More recently it has been suggested that non-invasive ventilation may reduce the requirement for endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation and improve patient physiology. Although no single trial has been powered for mortality as its primary outcome, recent meta-analyses10–16 suggest that there is a mortality benefit.
Non-invasive ventilation – mechanism of action
Non-invasive ventilatory support can avoid the need for tracheal intubation by improving oxygenation, reducing the work of breathing and increasing cardiac output. 17–20 Two common methods employ continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) through a facial mask. CPAP maintains the same positive pressure support throughout the respiratory cycle whereas NIPPV increases airway pressure more during inspiration than during expiration. In comparison with CPAP, NIPPV gives greater improvements in oxygenation and carbon dioxide clearance, and a bigger reduction in the work of breathing. Because of this differential between inspiration and expiration a higher mean pressure can be tolerated and maintained, although this may lead to potentially harmful falls in blood pressure. 21 It is therefore unclear whether NIPPV is superior to CPAP in the treatment of cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.
Previous trial findings
There has been a steady stream of published randomised trials investigating the effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation in the management of severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in the last 20 years. 21–36 None has been powered to detect mortality benefit as the primary outcome and most have used a variety of surrogate end points such as physiological parameters, intubation or predefined treatment failure. Moreover, these trials have investigated the comparative effectiveness of CPAP versus standard oxygen therapy,22–27 NIPPV versus standard oxygen therapy,28–30 NIPPV versus CPAP21,31–33 or either intervention (CPAP and NIPPV) versus standard oxygen therapy alone. 34–36 Almost all of these trials, now numbering approximately 25, have shown that non-invasive ventilation improves physiological variables, endotracheal intubation rates or other surrogate markers of treatment failure.
One study by Mehta and colleagues21 was terminated prematurely because of an excess number of patients with acute MI in the NIPPV arm. Other studies specifically designed to address this issue have not confirmed any relationship between NIPPV and MI rate. 31
Despite the lack of definitive mortality benefit, non-invasive ventilation is increasingly being used in clinical practice37 and advocated by a number of specialty organisations. 38–40 In an attempt to determine whether a true mortality benefit exists, a number of authors have reviewed and assimilated relevant data and published systematic reviews with meta-analyses. 10–16,41,42 The following section reviews the key meta-analyses and recent primary trials.
Recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses
There have been seven systematic reviews published since 2005,10–16 all reporting comparable findings and drawing broadly similar conclusions.
Masip and colleagues10 identified 15 eligible randomised controlled trials comparing non-invasive ventilation with standard oxygen or with another type of non-invasive ventilation, i.e. CPAP compared with NIPPV. Data from studies were extracted on to a standardised data collection form by two independent reviewers and checked by a third. Methodological quality was assessed by a recognised scoring system. 43 The primary outcomes for the systematic review were in-hospital mortality and treatment failure as all included trials reported these outcomes. Treatment failure was inconsistently categorised and the authors defined this arbitrarily as the ‘need to intubate’. Data on MI rates during hospital admission were collected and analysed. All other parameters such as physiological variables, length of stay and critical care admission were not consistently reported across trials. There were six trials comparing only CPAP with standard oxygen therapy, three comparing only NIPPV with standard oxygen therapy, three trials with three trial arms (two interventions CPAP or NIPPV) and three studies comparing CPAP with NIPPV. The majority of trials were single centre,21–26,29–32,34,35 based in an intensive care unit (ICU)22–25,29 or emergency department21,26–28,30–36 or both,22 took place in 10 different countries and included small numbers of patients (sample size 26–130). The majority used full face masks, and CPAP (2.5–16 cmH2O) and NIPPV (8/3 to 20/5 cmH2O) levels varied. There was considerable variation in the complexity of ventilator design. Only one study27 used mortality as a primary end point. In general, methodological quality of the included trials was adequate. Figures 1 and 2 detail the principal data synthesis for the review’s primary comparisons. 10 There were data on 727 patients for the comparison of non-invasive ventilation (CPAP or NIPPV) with standard oxygen. Patients receiving non-invasive ventilation had a reduction in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.40–0.78; p < 0.01) and endotracheal intubation (risk ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.57; p < 0.01). Results remained significant if CPAP was analysed independently for both in-hospital mortality and need for intubation. NIPPV comparisons are limited by the relatively smaller number of trial participants (n = 315) but it appeared to reduce mortality (p = 0.07) and intubation rates (p = 0.02). There was no difference in outcomes between CPAP and NIPPV but these comparisons included a total of only 219 patients. There was no difference in MI rates between arms. Tests for heterogeneity and publication bias were not significant. Masip and colleagues10 concluded that this meta-analysis demonstrated improved survival in patients receiving non-invasive ventilation and that this should be considered first-line therapy in patients presenting with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.
In a further meta-analysis Peter and colleagues11 identified 23 eligible studies from 14 countries over an 18-year period. Data assimilation of these trials, including eight not included in the review by Masip and colleagues,10 resulted in similar findings. Once again the design of the systematic review was of a high standard. The primary outcomes chosen were in-hospital mortality and need for intubation and mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure, length of hospital stay, length of time that non-invasive ventilation was applied and MI rate. There was a reduction in mortality for those patients treated with CPAP (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.28–0.90; p = 0.015; number needed to treat, 5). There was a trend towards improved survival with NIPPV. Both CPAP (relative risk 0.44, 95% CI 0.29–0.66; p = 0.0003; number needed to treat, 6) and NIPPV (relative risk 0.50, 95% CI 0.27–0.90; p = 0.02; number needed to treat, 7) showed benefit when intubation was an outcome. There was no difference in any outcome when CPAP and NIPPV were compared. There was a trend towards an increase in MI rate with NIPPV but this was largely caused by the weighting of the study by Mehta and colleagues. 21 Peter and colleagues11 suggested that both therapies are effective although, because of the relatively small proportions of pulmonary oedema patients included in these trials, their results are difficult to generalise. 11 In addition it was felt that further work was required to better define the relationship between positive end-expiratory pressure and myocardial ischaemia, as well as further trials in hypercapnic patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.
These meta-analyses10–16 were published after the trial commenced and were therefore provided to the trial steering committee and data monitoring committee. Both were felt not to materially change the need for a large adequately powered randomised controlled trial investigating the overall effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation and the comparable effectiveness of NIPPV and CPAP.
Trial aims and objectives
Aims
In patients with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, studies of non-invasive ventilation have consistently demonstrated an early improvement in physiological variables including arterial oxygenation and heart and respiratory rate. However, because of small sample sizes, the benefits of non-invasive ventilation for clinical outcomes such as intubation rate and mortality remain unproven. A large multicentre trial was therefore required to establish whether:
-
Non-invasive ventilation reduces mortality when compared with standard therapy.
-
NIPPV is more effective than CPAP.
-
The rate of MI is increased by non-invasive ventilation.
Principal objectives
In this multicentre randomised controlled trial of non-invasive ventilation in the early management of patients with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (the 3CPO trial) we wished to determine:
-
the clinical effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation (CPAP or NIPPV) in addition to standard therapy against standard therapy alone
-
the comparative effectiveness of CPAP and NIPPV
-
the safety of non-invasive ventilation
-
patient satisfaction after treatment with non-invasive ventilation compared with standard therapy alone
-
the 6-month survival and quality of life of patients presenting with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema
-
the incremental cost-effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation versus standard therapy from a health and social care perspective, in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Chapter 2 Methods
Overview
This study was an open prospective randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention arms (CPAP and NIPPV) with standard oxygen therapy alone in patients presenting with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Patients were recruited on a 1:1:1 basis to standard oxygen therapy, CPAP or NIPPV. The intervention was delivered for a minimum of 2 hours.
Participants
Inclusion criteria
-
Patients older than 16 years of age.
-
Signs and symptoms consistent with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema as the principal clinical complaint: acute dyspnoea and bilateral crackles on chest auscultation.
-
Chest radiograph confirming the diagnosis of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: typical features of interstitial oedema present.
-
Arterial blood gas analysis with a pH of < 7.35 (hydrogen ion concentration > 45 nmol/l).
-
Respiratory rate of > 20 breaths per minute.
Exclusion criteria
-
Severely altered consciousness (unconscious or responding to pain only).
-
Any patient requiring an immediate lifesaving intervention, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, airway control, cardioversion or inotropic support.
-
Any patient requiring thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
-
A clear alternative primary diagnosis, such as lobar pneumonia.
-
An inability to provide informed consent at any time within the trial period, such as dementia or other form of incapacity.
-
Previous inclusion in the 3CPO study.
Interventions
All randomised patients received a minimum of 2 hours of their allocated treatment. Other therapies were at the discretion of the treating clinical team.
A pragmatic decision was made to use a midrange ventilator that was able to deliver both types of ventilation (CPAP and NIPPV). The BiPAP® Synchrony® [Respironics (UK), Chichester] is a compact portable ventilator used to deliver the non-invasive intervention. Up to 15 l/min of oxygen can be entrained into the face mask, delivering a maximum oxygen concentration of 60% depending on an individual patient’s tidal volume and mask leak.
Standard oxygen therapy
Patients randomised to standard medical therapy received supplemental oxygen via a variable delivery oxygen mask with a reservoir to maintain saturations above 92%.
Continuous positive airway pressure
Patients randomised to CPAP were fitted with a self-sealing full face mask connected to the BiPAP Synchrony ventilator set to CPAP function at a starting pressure of 5 cmH2O. Oxygen was entrained into the system at 15 l/min and subsequently adjusted to maintain oxygen saturation above 92%. CPAP pressure was titrated in 2-cmH2O steps at 2- to 3-minute intervals over the first 10–15 minutes to a maximum pressure of 15 cmH2O according to the clinical response and tolerance of the patient.
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation
Patients randomised to NIPPV were fitted with a self-sealing full face mask connected to the BiPAP Synchrony ventilator set to NIPPV ventilation in spontaneous/timed mode with a backup respiratory rate of 12 breaths/min. The starting inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) and expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) are preset to 8 cmH2O and 4 cmH2O respectively. Oxygen was entrained into the system at 15 l/min and subsequently adjusted to maintain oxygen saturation above 92%. IPAP and EPAP were titrated at 2- to 3-minute intervals over the first 15–18 minutes to maximum pressures of 20 cmH2O and 10 cmH2O, respectively, according to the clinical response and tolerance of the patient. IPAP is increased by 2-cmH2O and EPAP by 1-cmH2O increments.
Additional therapy
All groups received standard therapy at the discretion of the attending physician. All centres were encouraged to use nitrate (buccal or intravenous) therapy. All other therapy, including intravenous loop diuretic and opioid therapy, was documented. A trial treatment guideline was developed and readily available in all recruiting emergency departments (see Appendix 1).
Failure of allocated treatment
There were no prespecified criteria for treatment failure. Clinicians were free to make the decision to stop an allocated treatment and to cross over to an alternative treatment including endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Crossovers were documented and analysed as secondary end points (see Table 1).
Physiology | Arterial blood analysis | Hydrogen ion concentration/pH |
Partial pressure of oxygen | ||
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide | ||
Pulse oximetry | Oxygen saturation | |
Respiratory rate | Breaths per minute | |
Blood pressure | Systolic, diastolic and mean | |
Heart rate | Rate per minute | |
Symptoms | Dyspnoea | Patient-assessed breathlessness score |
Tolerability | ||
Side effects | Gastric dilatation, facial abrasions | |
Adverse events | Myocardial infarction | |
Treatment failure | Worsening acidosis, hypercapnia or hypoxemia after 1 hour | |
Progressive respiratory distress | ||
Inability to tolerate allocated treatment | ||
Patient satisfaction |
Outcome measures
Primary end points
The primary end point for the comparison of non-invasive ventilation (CPAP and NIPPV) with standard therapy was 7-day mortality. The primary end point for the comparison of CPAP with NIPPV was the composite of 7-day mortality and intubation.
Secondary end points
Based on data from our pilot studies,26,36 the rapidity and efficacy of response to treatment was assessed using several secondary end points. These include symptoms, tolerability, side effects and physiological variables (Table 1). In addition, cost-effectiveness was determined by assessing the use of health-care resources, quality of life and long-term survival.
Definition of myocardial infarction
Two consultant cardiologists blinded to treatment allocation adjudicated on the diagnosis of MI in the following categories: definite MI, probable MI, possible MI and definite no MI. Incident cases of MI were defined as the composite of definite and probable MI.
Because of the transition in definitions at trial outset, the diagnosis of MI was defined according to both the 1971 World Health Organization (WHO) and the 2000 European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology criteria. 44 The effect of the intervention was assessed against the rate of MI as defined by both criteria.
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction with the treatment in the emergency department was determined using a questionnaire consisting of the outcomes and attitudes towards care questions from the widely used Group Health Association of America (GHAA) consumer satisfaction survey. 45 This was ideally self-completed, although the research team assisted in the completion if requested when they visited the patient in the first week after recruitment.
Sample size
The trial addresses two distinct questions:
-
Is non-invasive ventilation superior to standard oxygen therapy?
-
Which form of non-invasive ventilation is the most efficacious: CPAP or NIPPV?
To maximise the ability to address these two distinct questions in the three groups we aimed to recruit 400 patients to each allocated treatment.
Is non-invasive ventilation superior to standard oxygen therapy?
The primary end point was 7-day mortality. Seven previous studies of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema22–26,29,36 (n = 11–50 per treatment group) at the time of protocol development had assessed standard facial oxygen therapy in comparison with CPAP ventilation, with only two further available studies29,34 assessing NIPPV ventilation. The pooled data showed a mortality rate of 21% (38/181) in patients receiving standard facial oxygen and 9% (16/173) in those receiving CPAP ventilation.
In this trial we aimed to be able to detect a 6% absolute difference in mortality, which is half the effect size previously reported. 41 To have an 80% chance of detecting a 6% difference (9% versus 15%) using a two-sided significance level of 0.05 we needed approximately 400 patients randomised to standard facial oxygen therapy and 800 patients randomised to either CPAP or NIPPV.
Which form of non-invasive ventilation is the most efficacious?
It is possible that the treatment effect between the two modes of non-invasive ventilation will be smaller than that observed compared with standard oxygen therapy. To help draw out any plausible and clinically useful treatment effects the additional primary end point of a composite of 7-day mortality and intubation rate was included.
With 400 patients in each of the CPAP and NIPPV arms the trial aimed to have 80% power using a two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect an absolute difference of approximately 7% in the composite end point (18% versus 11%) and of approximately 6% in mortality (12% versus 6%).
Patient consent processes
Informing participants of benefits and risks
Patients were given an information sheet (Appendix 2) to read before consent was obtained. Those patients who were severely unwell were given the risks and benefits of participation in the trial verbally. In these cases the fact that the information had been given verbally and understood by the patient was witnessed and the information sheet left with the patient to read later. Patients’ relatives were also given an information sheet at the time of patient consent or relative assent (Appendix 3).
Obtaining consent or assent
Written informed consent was obtained before randomisation whenever possible (Appendix 4). When a patient was unable to give written consent, either witnessed verbal consent or relatives’ assent was obtained (Appendix 5). Verbal patient consent was witnessed in writing by a second individual involved in the patient’s clinical care. Subsequent written consent was obtained as soon as possible prior to the patient’s data being used in the trial and normally within 1 week of recruitment (Appendices 6 and 7).
In the event of a patient being unable to give informed written or verbal consent, and when there was no accompanying relative who was willing to give assent, the patient was excluded from the study and treated according to the emergency department’s usual clinical practice.
Recruitment and randomisation
On arrival at the emergency department, attending medical and nursing staff recruited, consented and randomised patients meeting the entry criteria. Trial number and treatment allocation were performed by telephone contact to a central automated randomisation centre at the University of Leeds. Patients were randomised on a 1:1:1 basis to one of the three treatment options: CPAP, NIPPV or standard oxygen therapy. The randomisation sequence was generated by an independent statistician at the Leeds Clinical Trials Unit and stratified by centre with variable randomisation block length.
Statistical methods
Primary outcomes
The trial statistician, Professor Jon Nicholl, performed the primary statistical analyses. All outcomes were assessed by intention to treat analysis. The analysis first compared patient and clinical characteristics of the three randomised groups to identify any statistically important imbalances in the randomisation. Second, it compared mortality in the three arms using a logistic regression model with the degrees of freedom for differences between the three treatments decomposed into the two orthogonal contrasts of (1) standard therapy versus non-invasive ventilatory support (CPAP and NIPPV) and (2) CPAP versus NIPPV. Third, if appropriate, it compared mortality taking into account any statistically important imbalances. The analysis then compared the composite end point of death or intubation using the same statistical approach. Data were analysed using spss version 15.0. Mean and standard deviation were reported for most continuous variables unless inspection revealed skewed data, in which case median and interquartile range were reported. To compare means in two-group comparisons of continuous variables t-tests were used, and to compare means across all three study groups one-way analysis of variance was used. Chi-squared tests were used to compare categorical variables apart from the principal analyses outlined above.
Secondary outcomes
Data for the secondary end points, such as rate of MI, patient satisfaction (Appendix 8) and QALYs, admission to a high dependency area, length of stay and changes in physiology over the first 2 hours of treatment, were examined using analysis of variance-type models, with repeated measures and adjustment for baseline covariates as appropriate. Statistical significance was taken at the 5% level.
Prespecified subgroup analysis
It is possible that non-invasive ventilation could be more effective in patients with more severe illness who have a higher risk of death. We therefore planned to examine whether there was any interaction between illness severity and the effect of treatment with non-invasive ventilation upon the primary outcome (7-day mortality). Illness severity was defined a priori by the baseline pH and post hoc by the baseline physiological variable shown to have the strongest independent association with 7-day mortality. Analysis used logistic regression to determine the significance of any interaction between severity and treatment effect with 7-day mortality as the outcome.
Health economics
Health economic outcomes
The economic evaluation followed the methods used within the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Technology Appraisal Programme. 46 In summary, it took the form of a cost–utility analysis with outcomes measured in the form of QALYs based on utilities derived from patient-completed EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The perspective taken was that of the NHS (and personal social services). Prices were at 2005/6 levels.
The general approach adopted within the economic evaluation was to quantify the resources used by individual patients within the trial using appropriate data sources and then combine these with unit costs to produce a total cost for each patient. These patient-level costs were then combined with patient-level EQ-5D data to produce an incremental cost per QALY and a probability that each treatment group is cost-effective at current funding levels.
Whereas the primary focus of the clinical study was a comparison of non-invasive ventilation versus no non-invasive ventilation, the economic evaluation focused on a comparison of the three study groups. Another deviation from the clinical analysis was that two time frames were adopted within the economic evaluation, one reflecting the trial itself (up to 6 months post randomisation) and another reflecting the length of time over which relevant costs and outcomes are apparent (over the remaining lifetime of patients). It is the lifetime cost-effectiveness that is the primary economic analysis.
Data collection – economic analysis
Data for the economic evaluation were collected from three sources:
-
Hospital patient administrative systems (PAS) were searched to identify length of hospital stay in each location (ward, coronary care, high dependency unit and intensive care unit).
-
A postal questionnaire consisting of the EQ-5D health utility survey and a health and social care resource use survey was sent to every surviving patient at 1, 3 and 6 months with two remailings 2 weeks apart. The resource use questionnaire contained information on use of outpatient, primary, community and social care services (e.g. GP contacts, emergency department attendances) and prescriptions.
-
It was not practicable to collect detailed resource use information relating to the emergency department episode for all patients and so a subsample of trial patients was used as the basis for a microcosting study.
Measurement and valuation of outcomes
The EQ-5D data were combined to produce an area under the curve with respect to time measured in years to produce QALYs. The area was calculated as the sum of the three trapeziums defined by baseline utility (which is assumed to be zero) at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months. Patients who died had by definition a utility of zero from the point of death onwards. For the purposes of analysis, the time of death was operationalised as being at the previous point of data collection (i.e. 0, 1 or 3 months). So, for example, someone dying before the 1-month follow-up was assumed to produce zero QALYs. The same approach was used for those costs collected via the postal questionnaire; however, hospitalisation costs do not suffer from this problem.
Measurement and valuation of costs
Resources used by each patient measured from PAS and the resource use questionnaire were multiplied by national unit costs (see tables in Chapter 3) to generate an estimate of the overall cost per patient. The microcosting identified consecutive patients over approximately 6 months at three of the participating hospitals: Edinburgh, York and Sheffield. The research nurse and recruiting doctor retrospectively estimated the total time that each member of staff spent involved in patient care up to 2 hours after randomisation. The research nurse then recorded all diagnostic tests performed in the 2 hours after randomisation using case notes and computer records. In total, 68 patients were included in the study, with approximately the same number in each arm of the study. Resource use was then combined with unit costs plus overheads and an estimate of the cost per patient for providing CPAP and NIPPV. For CPAP and NIPPV the equivalent annual cost of a Respironics Synchrony ST ventilator was calculated as the sum of the purchase price, consumables and maintenance based on a 5-year life expectancy and a 3.5% discount rate payable in advance. The cost per patient was based on the equivalent annual cost and an estimated annual workload of 130.
Analysis
Calculation of costs and QALYs
Although complete data for hospitalisations cover the full 6 months of the trial, the questionnaire data relate only to ‘the previous month’. Consequently, for those resources that are identified from the questionnaires, we do not know the level of use for month 2 and months 4–5. Resource use in these months is therefore estimated through linear interpolation of the preceding and following observations. Such an approach is in line with the calculation of QALYs.
Economic end points
The focus of the economic evaluation was the incremental cost per QALY ratios (also known as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios or ICERs) of the two more effective treatments, and the probability that each treatment (including the control group) would be cost-effective. When evaluating these probabilities it is necessary to specify the monetary value of a QALY gain. This QALY value reflects a threshold, with interventions that generate QALYs at a cost which is below this value being deemed cost-effective.
Within England and Wales, NICE uses two QALY values when assessing cost-effectiveness: £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. If a technology produces an ICER that is less than the lower valuation it is likely to be funded. Above this value a technology needs to demonstrate other characteristics that are of importance in order to be considered cost-effective. Above £30,000 per QALY there must be very strong auxilliary reasons for an intervention to be funded. Consequently, the economic evaluation reported here aims to produce the probabilities that each treatment is cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. This will be reported in tandem with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves defined over the range £0–50,000 per QALY.
Comparisons of mean costs and QALYs were also undertaken using analysis of variance. Although it is unlikely that the underlying data for these comparisons are normally distributed, typically with costs being skew and QALYs generated from the EQ-5D being bimodal, the large sample sizes are thought to reduce the problems caused by using parametric tests. 47
Missing data
The use of patient-reported outcomes and resource use typically produces rates of missing data of around 50% at 6 months for this patient population. Although this can lead to a bias in observed differences, there is no consensus on whether and how missing data should be imputed (and its role in the interpretation of a study’s overall results). The primary analysis was a complete case analysis (i.e. using only patients with complete data at all time points), with an additional analysis undertaken using the last observation carried forward as a method of imputing missing data. When a preceding value was not available to be carried forward the next observation was carried backwards, and when no observation was available for a patient the group-specific mean value for living patients was used.
Time frame
The consequences of treatment potentially last for the lifetime of the patients and so the most relevant time frame is the remaining lifetime of patients. This formed the basis of the primary analysis. However, the costs and outcomes for such an analysis necessarily required modelling in addition to the estimation of the 6-month costs and QALYs from the trial. Consequently, a 6-month analysis was produced that represented observed (unmodelled) cost-effectiveness.
Costs and QALYs accruing after 6 months were modelled based on mortality rates, utilities and costs observed in the 4- to 6-month post-randomisation period. Use of rates and counts in the 4- to 6-month period was considered to represent the ‘normal’ pattern of care and natural history of the disease in this patient group. Therefore, using this is considered to be a reasonable estimate of future costs and outcomes.
Consequently, the mortality rate observed in the 4- to 6-month period was compared with that seen in the general population of England. The excess mortality seen in the trial population was then used to adjust pro rata subsequent age-specific annual mortality, and hence life expectancy, seen in the general population. The assumption here is that excess mortality is seen beyond 6 months, which is supported by the results of longer-term studies in the patient population. 48 The utility recorded at the 6-month follow-up was used to adjust age-specific general population utilities additively, and then combined with the life expectancy to produce an expected number of QALYs. The costs observed in the sixth month were combined with life expectancy to produce an expected cost. Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5% per annum.
In this modelling no account is taken of the arm of the trial that the patients belong to; life expectancy, utility and cost relied only on age and gender. The mortality, utility decrement and cost figures from the trial used in the modelling of expected QALYs and costs were means from the entire trial. This is considered reasonable as, following the immediate treatment period, no long-lasting differences between treatments would be expected.
Data collection – recruited patients
The following data and variables were collected for all recruited patients (Appendix 9):
-
physiological variables (pulse, non-invasive blood pressure, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation) recorded on admission and at 1 and 2 hours after commencing the allocated intervention
-
arterial blood gas analysis recorded on admission and 1 hour after commencing the allocated intervention
-
patients were asked to score their severity of breathlessness on admission and at 1 and 2 hours after commencing the allocated intervention
-
12-lead electrocardiograms and biochemical markers of cardiac damage as clinically indicated
-
clinical details such as patient demographics, preceding medical history and medication on admission
-
in-hospital therapy including drug therapy, duration of interventional treatment, ventilatory pressures used (when appropriate)
-
length of stay including duration of care in intensive or high dependency areas
-
complications or adverse events, such as conjunctivitis, nasal skin trauma, gastric aspiration, pneumothorax
-
treatment failure and intubation rate
-
7-day and in-hospital mortality.
Ethical and research governance
Ethics committee review
The trial was approved by the Multicentre Research Ethics Committee for Scotland (MREC/02/0/74), and individual local research ethics committees carried out a local review for each site. The trial complies with the current research governance policies and the MRC Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials. 49
Research and development review
For each participating site, management approval was obtained from the local research and development department. Indemnity was provided via the relevant NHS indemnity scheme. Maintenance and repair of the ventilators was covered by an extended warranty agreement with the supplier for the duration of patient recruitment.
Trial registration
The trial is registered on Current Controlled Trials with registration number ISRCTN07448447 (www.controlled-trials.com).
Trial monitoring
Trial steering committee
This committee included a number of the grant applicants (AG, SG, ME) and, as requested by the Health Technology Appraisal (HTA) programme, three individuals (TC, RD, TMcD) not directly involved in the trial including a steering committee chair (TC). A member of a relevant consumer group (PH) also sat on this committee as well as an ex officio representative from the HTA programme (see Acknowledgements). This group met six times during the trial.
Trial management group
The trial management group met regularly and consisted of the grant applicants, the trial manager and the regional research nurses. This group met 12 times during the trial.
Local project groups
Each local site had a project group including the recruitment site clinical lead (emergency department consultant), a member of the senior nursing staff and middle grade medical staff for the emergency department and any other appropriate individuals. The regional research nurse and one of the grant applicants acted as a link between the local project groups and the trial management group.
Data monitoring committee
The data monitoring committee (DMC) analysed study data for monitoring purposes at 6-monthly intervals. This was a three-treatment comparison of standard oxygen therapy, CPAP and NIPPV. Two main questions were asked and rules that will lead to consideration of stopping were applied as follows.
Efficacy
The general principle was that stopping for reasons of efficacy would be triggered only by treatment group differences that were statistically significant at the 0.001 level. This avoids any serious distortion of the statistical significance of treatment differences due to multiple testing. It also avoids premature disclosure of unconvincing findings.
Using death, and then the combined end point of death or intubation, as the end point:
-
If p < 0.001 (two-sided) terminate the worst of these treatments and then compare the best with standard therapy. If p < 0.001 terminate the trial. Otherwise continue to randomise to the best versus standard therapy.
-
If 0.001 < p < 0.05 do not terminate the worst (as we are not certain which this is) but compare only the best versus standard therapy (and if p < 0.001 terminate normal care).
-
If p > 0.05 combine CPAP and NIPPV and then compare with standard therapy. If p < 0.001 terminate worst arm, i.e. terminate the trial if this is CPAP and NIPPV. Otherwise just terminate normal care.
Safety
The general principle was that if any of the principal outcomes was significantly worse at the 5% level of significance in either of the two active intervention arms, we would immediately consider termination of the inferior treatment. If the criteria below were met the DMC would consider the global position with all end points before recommending termination of any of the trial arms. As an illustration, if one treatment had a non-significantly improved mortality relative to standard care but a significantly worse intubation or MI rate, termination of this trial arm would not be automatic.
-
If the mortality rate is significantly (p < 0.05) higher in patients randomised to either CPAP or NIPPV than in patients randomised to standard oxygen therapy, the inferior treatment will be dropped from future randomisations.
-
If the intubation rate is significantly (p < 0.05) higher in patients randomised to either CPAP or NIPPV than in patients randomised to standard oxygen therapy, dropping the inferior treatment from future randomisation will be considered.
-
If the MI rate is significantly (p < 0.05) higher in patients randomised to either CPAP or NIPPV than in patients randomised to standard oxygen therapy, dropping the inferior treatment from future randomisation will be considered.
At all times the DMC was guided by the above rules but not bound by them. All aspects of the trial and evidence from other studies were taken into account when making its recommendations.
Follow-up of non-recruited patients
Patients who were eligible for inclusion but not recruited were followed up to provide data to comply with CONSORT reporting for randomised controlled trials. 50 In addition, this information was required to monitor recruitment of eligible patients at each recruiting site. The Data Protection Act was complied with at all times. As a result of considerable variation in the availability of appropriate routine data, local site groups in conjunction with the regional trial research coordinator developed their own systems for the collection of data. Non-recruited patients were classified into groups to support delivery of site recruitment rates (Table 2).
1. | Missed (eligible but not considered for inclusion) |
2. | Refused (patient refused initial consent) |
3. | Too sick to consent (eligible but too sick to communicate consent and no relative is available to give assent) |
4. | Communication problems (unable to consent because of language, deafness, aphasia) |
5. | Clinician choice (eligible but deliberately excluded by the clinician) |
6. | Previous participant in the study |
7. | Randomisation service failure |
8. | Non-invasive ventilation equipment not available |
9. | Other (any patient who did not fit above) |
Data management and security
All data collection forms sent from the clinical centres were input into project databases created in Microsoft access by the research team at the University of Sheffield. Data validation rules were written into the database where possible to minimise incorrect data entry. Data validation was carried out for each variable prior to analysis by analysing data ranges and examining outliers. Potential inaccuracies were checked against data collection forms and outstanding queries raised with the research contact at the clinical centres. Logical checks on related variables were also carried out (e.g. admission date after date of death). Input validation was carried out on a random sample of 5% of all eligible patients. We looked at 55 patients and 37 fields (taking each biochemical cardiac marker test, date, time, result as one field) and found three errors (one error each for three patients).
Data were collected, stored and used in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. All electronic data and trial documentation were stored in compliance with the ethics committee requirements. All information containing patient identifying details (recruitment form and consent forms) was stored in separate filing cabinets and separate databases. Any treatment and outcome data were referred to by study number only and had any patient-identifiable information removed. All documentation was kept in locked filing cabinets.
All databases were stored on the computer hard drive of two members of the research team. Databases were password protected and the password was known only by three members of the research team. Databases were backed up on a data storage device each week.
Data will be archived and stored in secure storage at the University of Sheffield and the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh for 7 years after the end of the trial (31 December 2007).
Changes to protocol
During the initial months of recruitment minor administrative changes were made to the trial protocol and paperwork to improve both readability and clarity. In June 2004 the Multicentre Research Ethics Committee for Scotland was consulted following discussions concerning how to handle data already collected on patients who subsequently refused continued participation at the point of retrospective consent (April 2004 trial management group, May 2004 trial steering committee meetings). The position adopted by the Committee was that:
‘data collected following the initial consent and until the time the patient declines to continue can still be used for the purposes of the study analysis. The Committee considers that the initial consent was given in good faith and therefore the patient cannot retrospectively decline to participate. Clearly when the patient regains capacity and chooses not to continue then further data should not be collected.’
Following this clarification the retrospective information sheet and relative information sheet made it explicit that, if the participant refused retrospective consent, only data collected up to this time point would be used.
In September 2005 a review of the protocol resulted in rewording of the methods for the economic analysis but no significant change. Myocardial infarction was changed to a secondary end point, to be monitored throughout for patient safety. The recommended settings for using the ventilator were revised to maximise treatment effects and improve the scientific value of the results. The maximum level for CPAP was increased from 12.5 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O and guidance encouraged upping the titration in both modalities to the maximum tolerance over the first 15 minutes of treatment.
Recruitment extension
We initially anticipated that the required number of patients would be recruited in a 2-year period. This was subsequently extended to 47 months. The principal reasons are discussed below.
Trial set-up
-
Bureaucracy of site set-up This led to a prolonged set-up time at most sites (local research ethics committee/R&D approval/issues of indemnity/stakeholder resistance) of up to 1 year from initial contact.
-
Staff training Time taken to train sufficient emergency department staff to a safe level of proficiency to use the study equipment was longer than anticipated. For some sites there was no existing expertise (the use of the equipment and accompanying training was an incentive for some sites to participate). Set-up training provided by Respironics took longer than hoped because of their own staffing shortages. Potential study patients were recruited as an emergency over a 24-hour period by attending clinical staff. This resulted in considerable time investment from the research team to ensure that all of these staff were trained to a proficient level. In addition, staffing shortages and pressures to meet 4-hour emergency department waiting time targets hampered training opportunities.
-
Staggered site start-up We were unable to start all sites at the same time because of the above and time required for input from research staff to set up each site.
-
More trial sites than initially anticipated. Increasing the number of recruiting sites from 17 to 26 took longer to administer. Negotiations took place with other sites that did not progress, and one site withdrew.
Study population
-
Fewer eligible patients presenting than projected from pilot studies.
-
Significant differences in eligible patients between sites.
-
Eligible patients too ill to provide informed consent.
-
Multiple presentations of patients with recurrent pulmonary oedema.
All of these issues were monitored throughout the project and measures taken to attempt to maximise recruitment.
Study sites
-
Variability in sustained commitment from individual sites impacted on projected recruitment targets for individual sites. Trial policy was to continue to support and promote a poorly recruiting site initially rather than withdrawing it. This was weighed against the time it takes to set up new sites and the additional expense involved in employing research staff in a geographically remote site. We issued each site with a realistic final target based on previous performance. One site withdrew from the trial.
-
Treatment preference and perception that the active treatment already works.
-
The 4-hour emergency department waiting target influenced the recruiting practice of the sites.
Chapter 3 Results
Of 1874 potentially eligible patients, 1511 were screened and 1156 randomised (Figure 3). A further 87 patients (Table 3) were excluded after randomisation because of ineligibility or previous recruitment into the trial, resulting in data being provided on 1069 for primary outcome analysis.
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Did not meet inclusion criteria | 1 | 6 | 5 | 12 |
Previous inclusion in 3CPO study | 14 | 18 | 11 | 43 |
Inability to provide informed consent at any time within the trial period | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 |
Inadequate consent gained before randomisation | 3 | 4 | 4 | 11 |
Patient details recorded by randomisation system but no evidence found in hospital records | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
Data collection and consent forms lost | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
No details available | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
Total | 23 | 36 | 28 | 87 |
Description of patients and comparability between groups
Patients were elderly (mean age ± SD: 77.8 ± 9.7 years), predominantly female (57%) and unwell with a marked tachycardia (mean pulse rate/min ± SD: 113 ± 22), tachypnoea (mean respiratory rate/min ± SD: 32 ± 7), hypertension (mean systolic blood pressure ± SD: 162 ± 36 mmHg), acidosis (mean SD: pH7.22 ± 0.09) and hypercapnia (mean ± SD: 7.6 2.2 kPa) (Tables 4 and 5). They had significant co-morbidities [ischaemic heart disease (63%), congestive cardiac failure (44%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18%) and hypertension (56%)]; 22% had symptoms of myocardial ischaemia at presentation.
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | All | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | 367 | 346 | 356 | 1069 | |
Age (years), mean ± SD | 78.5 ± 9.1 | 77.6 ± 10.2 | 77.2 ± 9.9 | 77.8 ± 9.7 | 0.227 |
Sex (male) | 42% | 45% | 43% | 43% | 0.788 |
Past medical history (%) | |||||
Ischemic heart disease (n = 1048) | 64 | 64 | 60 | 63 | 0.451 |
Congestive heart failure (n = 1046) | 45 | 42 | 47 | 44 | 0.403 |
Valvular heart disease (n = 1043) | 12 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 0.677 |
COPD (n = 1049) | 19 | 15 | 21 | 18 | 0.178 |
Hypertension (n = 1038) | 56 | 55 | 57 | 56 | 0.878 |
Diabetes mellitus (n = 1053) | 30 | 30 | 33 | 31 | 0.573 |
Hypercholesterolaemia (n = 1027) | 30 | 33 | 31 | 32 | 0.712 |
Current smoker (n = 1036) | 16 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 0.584 |
PVD (n = 1040) | 10 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 0.891 |
Cerebrovascular disease (n = 1050) | 18 | 17 | 16 | 17 | 0.879 |
Regular medications (%) | |||||
Antiplatelet therapy (n = 1041) | 62 | 65 | 63 | 63 | 0.821 |
Anticoagulant therapy (n = 1042) | 14 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 0.453 |
ACE inhibitor/ARB (n = 1033) | 38 | 41 | 43 | 41 | 0.473 |
Aldosterone antagonist (n = 1029) | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0.245 |
Diuretic (n = 1035) | 63 | 61 | 64 | 63 | 0.552 |
Beta-blocker (n = 1032) | 31 | 36 | 38 | 35 | 0.110 |
Calcium antagonist (n = 1024) | 19 | 18 | 23 | 20 | 0.312 |
Nitrate (n = 1031) | 22 | 26 | 26 | 24 | 0.388 |
Nicorandil (n = 1041) | 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 0.662 |
Theophyllines (n = 1040) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.663 |
Oral steroids (n = 1041) | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 0.532 |
Inhaled steroids (n = 1044) | 16 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 0.046 |
Bronchodilator inhalers (n = 1041) | 19 | 13 | 17 | 16 | 0.120 |
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | All | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline physiology | |||||
Pulse rate (per minute) (n = 1060) | 114 ± 24 | 113 ± 21 | 112 ± 22 | 113 ± 22 | 0.380 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) (n = 1057) | 161 ± 38 | 162 ± 35 | 161 ± 36 | 162 ± 36 | 0.947 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) (n = 1054) | 87 ± 25 | 89 ± 23 | 87 ± 24 | 88 ± 24 | 0.471 |
Respiratory rate (per minute) (n = 1053) | 33 ± 7 | 32 ± 7 | 32 ± 7 | 32 ± 7 | 0.203 |
Oxygen saturation (%) (n = 1052) | 92 (86–97) | 92 (86–97) | 92 (85–97) | 92 (86–97) | 0.936 |
Arterial pH (n = 1053) | 7.22 ± 0.08 | 7.21 ± 0.09 | 7.22 ± 0.09 | 7.22 ± 0.09 | 0.321 |
Arterial pO2 (kPa) (n = 1049) | 10.7 (8.3–14.9) | 10.9 (8.5–16.5) | 10.3 (8.4–15.5) | 10.6 (8.4–15.6) | 0.617 |
Arterial pCO2 (kPa) (n = 1052) | 7.6 ± 2.5 | 7.5 ± 1.9 | 7.7 ± 2.3 | 7.6 ± 2.2 | 0.525 |
Bicarbonate (mmol/l) (n = 1003) | 21 ± 4 | 21 ± 4 | 21 ± 5 | 21 ± 4 | 0.725 |
Patient symptoms | |||||
Symptom of MI at presentation (n = 1039) | 22% | 22% | 22% | 22% | 0.980 |
Patient self-reported dyspnoea (n = 657) | 10 (8–10) | 10 (8–10) | 10 (8–10) | 10 (8–10) | 0.551 |
Trial intervention
Patients and concomitant therapies were evenly allocated across the intervention arms (Figure 3 and Table 6). Although overall completion rates were similar, standard oxygen therapy was associated with a greater failure rate due to respiratory distress, whereas non-invasive ventilation was less well tolerated, especially NIPPV (Table 7). The mean (SD) duration of CPAP therapy was 2.2 ± 1.5 hours and of NIPPV therapy was 2.0 ± 1.3 hours.
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | All | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial treatmentb | |||||
Nitrate therapy (n = 1054) | 93% | 88% | 91% | 90% | 0.11 |
Diuretic therapy (n = 1057) | 90% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 0.89 |
Opioid therapy (n = 1054) | 55% | 50% | 49% | 51% | 0.31 |
Inspired oxygen (l/min) (n = 983) | 12 ± 4 | 12 ± 4 | 12 ± 4 | 12 ± 4 | 0.44 |
Ventilation pressure (cmH2O) | – | 10 ± 4 | 14 ± 5/7 ± 3 | – | |
Treatment allocation | |||||
Treatment allocated | 367 | 346 | 356 | 1069 | |
Started allocated treatmentc | 365/366 (99.7%) | 337/343 (98.3%) | 344/354 (97.2%) | 1046/1063 (98.4%) | 0.02 |
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | All | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Completed allocated treatmentb | 298/363 (82.1%) | 285/340 (83.8%) | 267/352 (75.9%) | 850/1055 (80.6%) | 0.02 |
Treatment changed to: | Intubation: 3; CPAP: 43; NIPPV: 13; not stated: 6 | Intubation: 1; standard: 31; NIPPV: 5; not stated: 18 | Intubation: 4; standard: 49; CPAP: 12; not stated: 20 | ||
Reason for not completing treatment allocation | |||||
Not tolerated | 1 (0.3%) | 18 (5.2%) | 30 (8.4%) | < 0.001 | |
Worsening arterial blood gas parameters | 26 (7.1%) | 10 (2.9%) | 15 (4.2%) | 0.03 | |
Respiratory distress | 31 (8.4%) | 5 (1.4%) | 12 (3.4%) | < 0.001 | |
Other reason | 18 (4.9%) | 24 (6.9%) | 29 (8.1%) | 0.21 |
Trial patients received significant concomitant therapies [loop diuretics (89%), nitrates (90%) and opioids (51%)].
Primary outcomes
There was no difference in the primary end point of 7-day mortality between non-invasive ventilation (CPAP or NIPPV) (9.5% mortality) and standard oxygen therapy (9.8% mortality) [odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.63–1.48; p = 0.87] (Figure 4 and Table 8). The 7-day mortality in non-recruited patients was 9.9% (see section on non-recruited patients).
Standard therapy | NIPPV + CPAP | Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary end point | |||||
7-day mortality | 9.8% | 9.5% | 0.97 | 0.63–1.48 | 0.87 |
Secondary end points | |||||
30-day mortality | 16.4% | 15.2% | 0.92 | 0.64–1.31 | 0.64 |
Intubation | 2.8% | 2.9% | 1.05 | 0.49–2.27 | 0.90 |
Critical care admission | 40.5% | 45.2% | 1.21 | 0.93–1.57 | 0.15 |
Myocardial infarction | |||||
WHO criteria | 24.9% | 27.0% | 1.12 | 0.84–1.49 | 0.46 |
ESC/ACC criteria | 50.5% | 51.9% | 1.06 | 0.82–1.36 | 0.66 |
Difference between means | 95% CI | p-valuea | |||
Length of hospital stay (days) | 10.5 | 11.4 | 0.9 | –0.2 to 2.0 | 0.10 |
Patient dyspnoea (delta 0–1 hour) | 3.9 | 4.6 | 0.7 | 0.2–1.3 | 0.008 |
Physiology (delta 0–1 hour) | |||||
Pulse rate (per minute) | 13 | 16 | 4 | 1–6 | 0.004 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 34 | 38 | 3 | –1 to 8 | 0.17 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 22 | 22 | 0 | –3 to 3 | 0.95 |
Respiratory rate (per minute) | 7.1 | 7.2 | 0.2 | –0.8 to 1.1 | 0.74 |
Oxygen saturation (%) | 3.5 | 3 | –0.4 | –1.4 to 0.6 | 0.41 |
Arterial pH | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.02–0.04 | < 0.001 |
Arterial pO2 (kPa) | 0.7 | –0.6 | –1.2 | –2.6 to 0.1 | 0.07 |
Arterial pCO2 (kPa) | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 0.4–0.9 | < 0.001 |
Bicarbonate (mmol/l) | 1.7 | 1.8 | 0.1 | –0.7 to 1.0 | 0.77 |
The primary composite end point of 7-day mortality and intubation rate (Figure 4 and Table 9) was similar for CPAP and NIPPV (11.7% versus 11.1% respectively; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59–1.51; p = 0.81).
CPAP | NIPPV | Odds ratio | 95% CI | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary end point | |||||
7-day mortality or intubation | 11.7% | 11.1% | 0.94 | 0.59–1.51 | 0.81 |
Secondary end points | |||||
7-day mortality | 9.6% | 9.4% | 0.97 | 0.58–1.61 | 0.91 |
30-day mortality | 15.4% | 15.1% | 0.98 | 0.64–1.49 | 0.92 |
Intubation | 2.4% | 3.5% | 1.48 | 0.60–3.67 | 0.40 |
Critical care admission | 44.5% | 45.8% | 1.06 | 0.78–1.43 | 0.73 |
Myocardial infarction | |||||
WHO criteria | 27.2% | 26.8% | 0.98 | 0.70–1.37 | 0.90 |
ESC/ACC criteria | 49.1% | 54.7% | 1.25 | 0.93–1.69 | 0.14 |
Difference between means | 95% CI | p-value | |||
Length of hospital stay (days) | 11.3 | 11.5 | 0.2 | –1.1 to 1.5 | 0.81 |
Patient dyspnoea (delta 0–1 hour) | 4.7 | 4.5 | –0.2 | –0.8 to 0.4 | 0.52 |
Physiology (delta 0–1 hour) | |||||
Pulse rate (per minute) | 17 | 15 | –2 | –5 to 1 | 0.26 |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 38 | 37 | –1 | –6 to 5 | 0.77 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 23 | 21 | –2 | –6 to 2 | 0.31 |
Respiratory rate (per minute) | 7.3 | 7.1 | –0.1 | –1.2 to 1 | 0.82 |
Oxygen saturation (%) | 3.5 | 2.6 | –0.9 | –2..2 to 0.3 | 0.14 |
Arterial pH | 0.12 | 0.1 | –0.01 | –0.02 to 0 | 0.05 |
Arterial pO2 (kPa) | –1.1 | 0 | 1.2 | –0.5 to 2.8 | 0.16 |
Arterial pCO2 (kPa) | 1.5 | 1.4 | –0.1 | –0.3 to 0.2 | 0.67 |
Bicarbonate (mmol/l) | 2.3 | 1.3 | –0.9 | –1.8 to 0 | 0.04 |
Secondary outcomes
There was no difference in 30-day mortality between standard oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (16.4% and 15.2% respectively) (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64–1.31; p = 0.64; Table 8). The 7- and 30-day mortality rates were similar for CPAP and NIPPV (9.6% versus 9.4% and 15.4% versus 15.1%; OR 0.97 and 0.98; p = 0.91 and p = 0.92 respectively; Table 9).
Non-invasive ventilation (CPAP and NIPPV) resulted in greater reductions in breathlessness, heart rate, acidosis and hypercapnia than standard oxygen therapy (Table 8). Rates of tracheal intubation, critical care admission (intensive or coronary care) and MI were similar for non-invasive ventilation compared with standard oxygen therapy, and for CPAP compared with NIPPV (Table 9).
Figure 5 describes in detail the physiological variables across all groups at 0, 1 and 2 hours after recruitment.
Subgroup analysis
There was no interaction between treatment effect upon 7-day mortality and illness severity (the prespecified subgroup analysis), whether defined a priori by baseline arterial pH (p = 0.94) or post hoc by systolic blood pressure (p = 0.17). Further post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis found no interactions between treatment effect and age (p = 0.52), gender (p = 0.33), previous history of heart failure (p = 0.28) and MI at presentation (p = 0.93).
Treatment crossovers (Table 7) had higher 7-day mortality than those who completed their allocated treatment (19.8% versus 7.1%; p < 0.001). If all crossovers are excluded, the 7-day mortality rates are 7.6% for non-invasive ventilation versus 6.0% for standard therapy (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73–2.28; p = 0.388), and 7.4% for CPAP versus 7.9% for NIPPV (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.50–1.75; p = 0.825). However, when treatment groups were analysed separately only the standard therapy group showed a significant difference in baseline pH between those patients who did and those who did not complete the treatment arm (7.230 versus 7.186; p < 0.001). No group showed any significant difference in baseline systolic blood pressure between those patients who did and those who did not complete the treatment arm. In conclusion, there is some evidence that the standard therapy crossovers were more severely ill.
Complications, side effects and adverse events
Tables 10 and 11 describe complications occurring within 24 hours of recruitment not directly related to the trial intervention and side effects that could be directly attributable to non-invasive ventilation respectively. There were no recorded serious adverse events during trial recruitment. There was no statistical or clinically significant difference between any intervention- or non-intervention-related side effect or complication.
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Vomiting | 6/357 | 6/334 | 8/347 | 0.816 |
Gastric aspiration | 0/357 | 0/333 | 1/347 | 0.371 |
Hypotension | 46/352 | 36/332 | 37/346 | 0.548 |
Arrhythmia requiring treatment | 23/350 | 12/332 | 25/345 | 0.102 |
Pneumothorax | 0/356 | 0/333 | 1/346 | 0.369 |
Progressive respiratory distress | 35/354 | 17/333 | 21/346 | 0.034 |
Cardiorespiratory arrest | 16/355 | 6/333 | 10/345 | 0.119 |
Any other complication | 23/353 | 18/329 | 18/345 | 0.737 |
CPAP | NIPPV | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
Facial skin necrosis | 0/287 | 0/291 | – |
Face discomfort | 14/281 | 15/292 | 0.909 |
Increased breathing discomfort | 11/285 | 16/291 | 0.352 |
Other side effect | 16/287 | 19/291 | 0.631 |
Patient satisfaction
A total of 472 patients completed at least part of the patient satisfaction questionnaire. A further 276 patients returned the questionnaire saying that they had no memory of their time in the emergency department and therefore felt unable to complete the questionnaire. There was no difference in age or gender of respondents between the treatment groups. Respondents were slightly younger than non-respondents (mean 77.0 versus 78.4 years; p = 0.028) and included a larger proportion of men (47% versus 40%; p = 0.018) (Table 12).
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | All | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean age (years) | 77.8 | 76.9 | 76.4 | 77.0 | 0.440 |
Male | 47% (72/155) | 53% (76/144) | 43% (74/173) | 47% (222/472) | 0.203 |
The proportion of patients rating each element as ‘excellent’ ranged from 23% for advice about ways to avoid illness and stay healthy (which also had a high proportion of missing data), to 58% for overall satisfaction with the service received. There was no significant difference in satisfaction between treatment groups for any of the patient satisfaction measures (Table 13).
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | All | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The thoroughness of examinations and accuracy of diagnosis | 49 (74/152) | 46 (65/140) | 52 (87/169) | 49 (226/461) | 0.673 |
The skill, experience and training of hospital staff | 45 (67/150) | 46 (64/140) | 52 (86/167) | 47 (217/457) | 0.421 |
The thoroughness of treatment | 50 (76/151) | 44 (61/139) | 54 (91/169) | 50 (228/459) | 0.216 |
Explanations given to you about medical procedures and tests | 38 (55/144) | 36 (48/135) | 42 (68/162) | 39 (171/441) | 0.520 |
Attention given to what you have to say | 40 (58/146) | 35 (44/127) | 42 (68/163) | 39 (170/436) | 0.461 |
Advice you got about ways to avoid illness and stay healthy | 20 (16/81) | 17 (12/69) | 30 (24/81) | 23 (52/231) | 0.154 |
Friendliness and courtesy shown to you by hospital staff | 56 (84/149) | 50 (70/139) | 61 (102/166) | 56 (256/454) | 0.151 |
Personal interest in you and your medical problems | 44 (64/146) | 38 (51/133) | 50 (82/166) | 44 (197/445) | 0.159 |
Respect shown to you, and attention to your privacy | 46 (68/148) | 46 (63/137) | 54 (89/166) | 49 (220/451) | 0.293 |
Reassurance and support offered to you by hospital staff | 49 (72/147) | 42 (56/135) | 47 (78/165) | 46 (206/447) | 0.419 |
Amount of time the hospital staff gave you | 43 (63/147) | 41 (54/133) | 49 (81/165) | 45 (198/445) | 0.303 |
Overall, how satisfied are you with the service you received? | 60 (91/151) | 52 (69/134) | 62 (103/167) | 58 (263/452) | 0.168 |
Long-term follow up, use of resource and quality of life
One year after the last patient was recruited, the details of all patients who had provided consent were sent to the NHS Information Centres for England and Scotland to identify all deaths. Of the original cohort, 39 declined to give repeat consent and six patients withdrew from the trial leaving 1024 patients eligible for longer-term follow-up. Survival curves for each arm are shown in the Kaplan–Meier plot (Figure 6); there was no difference between the three treatment groups (p = 0.964, log-rank test).
Data were collected on the use of other cardiovascular interventions (investigations and treatment) up to the time of discharge from hospital. Table 14 details the more common interventions. As can be seen there is no difference in any of the parameters between the three trial intervention groups.
ST | CPAP | NIPPV | p-valuea | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intravenous thrombolysis | 5/335 | 4/310 | 3/328 | 0.792 |
PTCA or coronary stenting | 16/335 | 22/310 | 20/330 | 0.458 |
CABG | 4/335 | 8/309 | 2/329 | 0.099 |
Other cardiac surgery | 9/335 | 5/309 | 10/329 | 0.487 |
Cardiac inotropes | 11/337 | 9/310 | 9/328 | 0.921 |
Intra-aortic balloon pump | 5/336 | 2/309 | 1/327 | 0.222 |
Echocardiogram | 160/336 | 147/308 | 178/330 | 0.180 |
Thallium scanning | 0/336 | 0/306 | 0/326 | – |
Recruitment and sites
In total, 26 emergency departments recruited patients for the trial. Geographical areas and sites are described in Figure 7 and Table 15. The total number of patients recruited by site is detailed in Figure 8. Cumulative patients recruited during the trial and monthly recruitment numbers are detailed in Figures 9 and 10 respectively.
Hospital | Location | Start | Finish |
---|---|---|---|
Northern General Hospital | Sheffield | 19/07/03 | 30/04/07 |
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh | Edinburgh | 21/07/03 | 30/04/07 |
Frenchay Hospital | Bristol | 04/09/03 | 30/04/07 |
Ninewells Hospital | Dundee | 15/09/03 | 14/02/06 |
Royal United Hospital | Bath | 15/09/03 | 30/04/07 |
York Hospital | York | 24/09/03 | 30/04/07 |
Southern General Hospital | Glasgow | 01/10/03 | 30/04/07 |
Birmingham Heartlands Hospital | Birmingham | 03/11/03 | 24/05/06 |
St James’s University Hospital | Leeds | 12/11/03 | 30/04/07 |
Leeds General Infirmary | Leeds | 19/11/03 | 30/04/07 |
Harrogate Hospital | Harrogate | 12/01/04 | 30/04/07 |
Selly Oak Hospital | Birmingham | 12/01/04 | 22/09/06 |
Barnsley Hospital | Barnsley | 16/01/04 | 30/04/07 |
Crosshouse Hospital | Kilmarnock | 05/07/04 | 30/04/07 |
Hope Hospital | Salford, Manchester | 05/07/04 | 30/04/07 |
Hairmyres Hospital | East Kilbride | 28/10/04 | 30/04/07 |
Whiston Hospital | Prescot, Merseyside | 09/11/04 | 30/04/07 |
The Princess Royal University Hospital | Farnborough | 29/11/04 | 14/02/06 |
Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital | Exeter | 31/01/05 | 30/04/07 |
Manchester Royal Infirmary | Manchester | 31/01/05 | 30/04/07 |
Bristol Royal Infirmary | Bristol | 01/02/05 | 30/04/07 |
Torbay Hospital | Torquay | 16/02/05 | 30/04/07 |
Wythenshawe Hospital | Manchester | 04/04/05 | 30/04/07 |
Warrington Hospital | Warrington | 31/05/05 | 30/04/07 |
The James Cook University Hospital | Middlesbrough | 04/10/05 | 30/04/07 |
Pinderfields Hospital | Wakefield | 25/08/06 | 30/04/07 |
Follow-up of non-recruited patients
Data were collected on all potentially eligible patients who were not recruited to comply with CONSORT reporting and to ensure adequate recruitment of eligible patients at each site. Reasons for non-recruitment are described in Chapter 2. Overall, 60% of potentially eligible patients and 73% of truly eligible patients (i.e. met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria) were recruited during the study period. Table 16 and Figures 11 and 12 detail the reasons for non-recruitment across all sites during the trial period, the proportion of truly eligible patients recruited at each site and the proportion of truly eligible patients recruited for each 3-month period respectively. The recruitment rate was significantly higher than the 50% of truly eligible patients anticipated in the original proposal.
Reason | n | Mean (SD) age, years | Male, n (%) | 7-day mortality, n (%) | Admitted to ICU, n (%) | Median (IQR) length of stay, days |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patients not randomised to trial | ||||||
Missed | 363 | 78 (10) | 150 (42) | 29 (9) | 15 (4) | 8 (5–13) |
Refused consent | 68 | 78 (10) | 17 (25) | 3 (5) | 0 | 7 (4–12) |
Too sick for initial consent | 125 | 79 (12) | 54 (43) | 19 (17) | 7 (6) | 8 (4–13) |
Unable to consent because of language, cognition, etc. | 18 | 77 (13) | 13 (72) | 2 (11) | 2 (11) | 11 (3–18) |
Clinician choice | 23 | 74 (11) | 11 (48) | 2 (10) | 0 | 9 (3–15) |
Randomisation service problems | 33 | 77 (11) | 17 (52) | 3 (11) | 1 (4) | 7 (3–14) |
Equipment not available | 15 | 79 (12) | 6 (43) | 2 (15) | 0 | 9 (5–15) |
Other | 32 | 80 (10) | 16 (50) | 2 (8) | 2 (8) | 7 (5–12) |
Not recorded | 9 | – | – | – | – | – |
All non-randomised | 686 | 78 (11) | 288 (42) | 63 (9.2) | 28 (5) | 8 (4–13) |
Patients randomised and excluded before intervention | ||||||
Refused consent | 7 | – | – | – | – | – |
Too sick for initial consent | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
Unable to consent due to language, cognition etc | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
Duplicate | 43 | 79 (8) | – | – | – | – |
Equipment not available | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
Other | 5 | – | – | – | – | – |
Not recorded | 11 | – | – | – | – | – |
Found not to meet inclusion criteria | 18 | 82 (12) | – | – | – | – |
All randomised and excluded | 87 | 80 (10) | – | – | – | – |
The 7-day mortality rate for non-recruited patients was 9.2% and median length of hospital stay was 8 days (all non-significant in comparison with recruited patients).
Chapter 4 Health economics
Unit costs and microcosting
Table 17 shows the unit costs used for the economic evaluation. The unit costs for the initial emergency department episode in each study group, which are derived from the microcosting study, are included in Table 17 and its constituent unit costs are shown in Table 18. The estimated cost per patient of the Respironics Synchrony machine used to provide non-invasive ventilation was £86, based on the costs outlined in Tables 19 and 20. A detailed breakdown of the emergency episode unit cost is shown in Table 21. As expected, the microcosting estimates for CPAP and NIPPV are markedly higher than that for standard therapy, reflecting the additional costs of the machine and additional staff time required to operate it.
Trial costs | Cost (£) (2006/7) | Source |
---|---|---|
Standard emergency department care for ACPO | 298 | Microcosting study (Tables 18–21) |
CPAP | 430 | Microcosting study (Tables 18–21) |
NIPPV | 475 | Microcosting study (Tables 18–21) |
GP telephone advice | 21 | Curtis 2007,51 telephone consultation |
GP surgery consultations | 50 | Curtis 2007,51 clinic consultation lasting 17.2 minutes |
GP home visits | 55 | Curtis 2007,51 home visit lasting 23.4 minutes |
Emergency department attendance | 78 | Reference costs 2007,a not leading to admission, category 1 investigation with category 1–2 treatment |
Minor injuries unit | 42 | Reference costs 2007, not leading to admission, category 1 investigation with category 1–2 treatment |
District nurse visits | 24 | Curtis 2007,51 community nurse |
Health visitor visits | 36 | Curtis 2007,51 health visitor |
Specialist cardiac nurse visits | 58 | Curtis 2007,51 nurse advanced |
Social worker visits | 34 | Curtis 2007,51 social worker (adult) assuming 1-hour visit |
Outpatient attendances (cardiology) | 100 | Reference costs 2007,a consultant-led follow-up attendance outpatient, face to face |
Inpatient day: | ||
ICU | 1353 | |
CCU | 450 | Reference costs 2007,a coronary care unit |
HDU | 659 | |
Other | 260 | Reference costs 2007,a non-elective heart failure without complications, cost per day (derived) |
Prescriptions (per month) | 5.77 | Weighted average based on most frequently prescribed drugs at 1 month |
Resource | Unit | Cost (£) (2006/7) | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Consultant | Hour | 175 | Curtis 2007,51 medical, per patient-related hour |
Mid-grade | Hour | 41 | Curtis 2007,51 SR, 56-hour week |
Junior | Hour | 32 | Curtis 2007,51 FHO2, 56-hour week |
Senior nursing | Hour | 69 | Curtis 2007,51 AfC7, hours of patient contact |
Middle nursing | Hour | 60 | Curtis 2007,51 AfC6, hours of patient contact |
Lower nursing | Hour | 40 | Curtis 2007,51 AfC5, hours of patient contact |
Overheads | Hour | 5.38 | Sheffield Teaching Hospitals (STH) |
Chest radiograph | Test | 29.87 | STH |
Arterial blood gases | Test | 9.47 | STH |
Full blood count | Test | 3.13 | STH |
Urea and electrolytes | Test | 2.46 | STH |
Blood sugars | Test | 1.50 | STH |
Liver function test | Test | 2.60 | STH |
Creatinine | Test | 1.57 | STH |
Troponin | Test | 6.21 | STH |
Thyroid | Test | 3.37 | STH |
Other | Test | 6.69 | Average of all tests listed above |
NIPPV machine | Patient | 85.70a |
Resource | Cost (£) (2006/7) | Source |
---|---|---|
Synchrony ST ventilator | 6069 | List price, 5-year life expectancy |
Battery pack connector cable | 29 | 5-year life expectancy |
13.2 V 10 Ah portable battery pack | 150 | Per annum based on 2-year life expectancy (LUHT) |
Fast charger for 9303 | 204 | Per annum based on 1-year life expectancy (LUHT) |
Face mask (various sizes) | 52 | Per patient, based on 1.5 masks per patient |
Non-invasive ventilation disposable circuit | 8 | Per patient |
Air inlet filter | 27 | Per month |
Filter cap | 9 | Per month |
Cost component | Cost over 5 years (£) (2006/7) |
---|---|
Machine | 6098 |
Maintenance | 3035 |
Replacement parts | 3900 |
Consumables | 39,033 |
Total | 52,065 |
Cost per patient | 86a |
Standard therapy (n = 27) | CPAP (n = 21) | NIPPV (n = 20) | |
---|---|---|---|
Staff costs | 186.08 | 237.74 | 282.54 |
Test costs | 89.94 | 84.96 | 85.39 |
Machine costs | 0.00 | 85.70 | 85.70 |
Emergency department overheads | 21.52 | 21.52 | 21.52 |
Total costs: | |||
Mean | 297.53 | 429.92 | 475.16 |
Minimum | 142.70 | 197.41 | 284.39 |
Maximum | 631.74 | 960.61 | 852.39 |
Six-month data
Questionnaires were sent to 668 participants at 1 month, 625 at 3 months and 573 at 6 months. The response rates were 77.2%, 73.9% and 65.1% respectively. Reasons for not sending out questionnaires are outlined in Table 22.
1 month | 3 months | 6 months | |
---|---|---|---|
Not sent questionnaire: | |||
Died | 141 | 182 | 231 |
Refused delayed consent | 49 | 49 | 49 |
Unable to give delayed consent | 116 | 116 | 116 |
Requested no questionnaires | 41 | 57 | 64 |
Unable to confirm patient status | 17 | 24 | 22 |
Other reason | 37 | 16 | 14 |
Sent questionnaire, no response | 152 | 163 | 200 |
Sent questionnaire, response | 516 | 462 | 373 |
There were no significant differences in the response rates between the three treatment arms (Table 23).
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | p-value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 month | Not sent | 38.3% | 38.7% | 35.6% | 0.854 |
Responders | 47.5% | 48.3% | 49.0% | ||
Non-responders | 14.2% | 13.0% | 15.4% | ||
3 months | Not sent | 40.2% | 43.1% | 41.5% | 0.606 |
Responders | 43.2% | 41.0% | 45.4% | ||
Non-responders | 16.7% | 15.9% | 13.2% | ||
6 months | Not sent | 47.3% | 46.8% | 45.1% | 0.964 |
Responders | 35.0% | 34.1% | 35.6% | ||
Non-responders | 17.8% | 19.1% | 19.3% |
Table 24 shows resource use up to 6 months for each treatment group. There is weak evidence of differences in the mean number of inpatient days up to 6 months between the three groups (p = 0.096). A more noticeable difference is apparent in the number of primary and community care contacts, although this is not significant (p = 0.059).
Resource item | Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | p-valuea |
---|---|---|---|---|
Inpatient days | 17.6 (n = 364) | 16.4 (n = 338) | 19.5 (n = 351) | 0.096 |
Outpatient attendances | 2.5 (n = 162) | 2.7 (n = 152) | 2.8 (n = 153) | 0.866 |
Primary/community contactsb | 13.4 (n = 162) | 27.2 (n = 152) | 13.4 (n = 153) | 0.045 |
Medication monthsc | 26.0 (n = 162) | 29.0 (n = 152) | 30.0 (n = 153) | 0.330 |
Days of informal care | 33.4 (n = 162) | 38.7 (n = 152) | 40.3 (n = 153) | 0.509 |
Table 25 shows the costs up to 6 months for each treatment group. Once resource use is combined with unit costs there is no evidence of differences between the groups. Although this may appear contradictory given that there was some evidence of differences in the underlying resources, there are two reasons why this can occur. First, the inpatient and primary/community care categories represent aggregates of several different types of inpatient and primary/community care, each with different unit costs. Second, each of the categories in Table 25 is based on a consistent sample size within each group, whereas in Table 24 different sample sizes are seen within each group.
Resource item | Standard therapy (n = 151) | CPAP (n = 138) | NIPPV (n = 140) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Initial emergency department episode | 298 | 430 | 475 | N/A |
Inpatients | 4283 (225–14,768) | 3961 (220–13,013) | 4231 (260–14,454) | 0.815 |
Outpatients | 248 (0–1340) | 274 (0–1303) | 253 (0–1200) | 0.894 |
Primary and community care | 532 (0–1944) | 867 (0–4943) | 523 (0–1827) | 0.080 |
Medications | 146 (0–415) | 159 (0–451) | 168 (0–421) | 0.486 |
Total cost at 6 monthsa | 5507 (523–15,499) | 5691 (650–16,855) | 5649 (735–17,226) | 0.949 |
When EQ-5D data are considered, and their associated estimate of QALYs, no significant differences are seen between the arms (Table 26). Mean values for patients are low, which is a product of the low quality of life of patients and the high mortality rate (which automatically generates utility values of zero).
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
EQ-5D 1 month | 0.464 (0.430–0.498) | 0.483 (0.449–0.517) | 0.500 (0.468–0.533) | 0.325 |
EQ-5D 3 months | 0.439 (0.404–0.473) | 0.463 (0.426–0.499) | 0.459 (0.425–0.493) | 0.585 |
EQ-5D 6 months | 0.421 (0.386–0.457) | 0.448 (0.411–0.485) | 0.411 (0.377–0.466) | 0.344 |
QALYs | 0.202 (0.187–0.217) | 0.213 (0.197–0.228) | 0.210 (0.195–0.224) | 0.593 |
Lifetime costs and QALYs
When mortality for trial patients in months 4–6 was compared with age- and sex-matched general population figures, a relative risk of death of 3.967 was observed (Table 27). This was applied to annual mortality estimates for the general population (for which there are actuarial estimates of life expectancy) to estimate trial-specific age- and sex-matched life expectancies. The mean life expectancy for patients in the trial if they were alive at 6 months was 3.505 years (Table 27).
All patients | |
---|---|
Mean excess risk of death in months 4–6 relative to general population | 3.967 |
Mean life expectancy at 6 months for patients alive at 6 months (years)a | 3.505 |
Mean reduced utility relative to general population at 6 months | 0.165 |
Mean lifetime QALY expectancy at 6 months for patients alive at 6 monthsa | 2.124 |
Mean cost in months 4–6 for patients alive at 6 months (£) | 1341 |
Mean lifetime cost at 6 months for patients alive at 6 months (£)a | 18,801 |
Compared with age- and sex-matched general population estimates, 6-month utilities of those patients alive were on average 0.165 lower. Subtracting this from the natural profile of utility seen in the general population and combining it with the trial life expectancies produces a mean estimate of 2.124 QALYs (Table 27). Mean costs in months 4–6 were £1341, which, when combined with trial life expectancy, produced a mean expected cost until death of £18,801 per patient surviving to 6 months (Table 27).
Four sets of data are available for the cost-effectiveness analysis: 6-month data without imputation (n = 429), 6-month data with imputation for missing values (n = 1069), lifetime data without imputation (n = 429) and lifetime data with imputation for missing values (n = 1069) (Table 28). Imputation appears to increase mean QALYs and reduce mean costs in the short term. This is because patients who died are over-represented in the data without imputation. These patients have high costs and low QALYs. Over the lifetime of patients, imputation produces similar costs to the complete case analysis, as the lower costs in the short term are offset by higher costs in the survivors.
Costs | QALYs | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | Standard therapy | CPAP | NIPPV | |
At 6 months without data imputationa | 5507 | 5691 | 5649 | 0.159 | 0.161 | 0.172 |
At 6 months with data imputationb | 3023 | 3224 | 3208 | 0.202 | 0.213 | 0.210 |
Lifetime without data imputationa | 15,659 | 16,115 | 16,350 | 1.329 | 1.503 | 1.337 |
Lifetime with data imputationb | 15,764 | 17,525 | 17,021 | 1.597 | 1.841 | 1.707 |
Looking at the 6-month analysis without imputation, standard therapy is both the least costly and the least effective. Relative to standard therapy, CPAP and NIPPV produce ICERs of £92,000 per QALY and £10,900 per QALY respectively. Once these data are modelled to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness, the ICERs change to £2600 and £86,400 per QALY for CPAP and NIPPV, respectively, relative to standard therapy.
After imputation a clear picture is seen, with standard therapy again being the least costly and least effective, and CPAP being the most effective and with similar costs to NIPPV. The estimates shown in Table 28 do not show the sampling uncertainty around the ICERs for the unimputed analyses or the degree of dominance for the imputed analyses. Such uncertainty is illustrated in Figures 13 and 14 for the lifetime analyses of unimputed and imputed data respectively.
For the complete case analysis the probability that CPAP is cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY is 71%, whereas for the analysis based on imputation using the last observation carried forward the probability that CPAP is cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY is 74%. Two additional analyses were undertaken to assess possible weakness in these estimates.
First, the estimation of lifetime costs and QALYs uses a fixed annual cost and utility, yet it would be better to characterise these as random variables. Consequently, these random variables were estimated using the distribution around the cost parameter in Table 27 and the variability in the UK population norms of the EQ-5D. This has the effect of increasing the uncertainty around the results, with the probability that CPAP is cost-effective reducing to 63% (Figure 15).
Second, regression imputation of lifetime total costs was undertaken for patients with missing values using age and gender as covariates. This also had the effect of increasing the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates, with the probability that CPAP is cost-effective reducing to 62%.
Discussion
The methods used for the economic evaluation up to 6 months follow those routinely used for trial-based economic evaluations. However, to capture the longer-term effects we modelled the lifetime costs and outcomes. Although this is sometimes undertaken using a supplementary decision-analytic model, we took the decision to build this analysis directly on to the trial-based analysis. This should not produce significantly different values as the estimates of life expectancy and utilities are based on the same sources used for decision-analytic models.
The estimation of lifetime costs and effects does, however, change the results of the economic evaluation from a situation in which NIPPV appears the most cost-effective within the trial to one in which CPAP is the most cost-effective over the lifetime of the trial. Whether this demonstrates that modelling is a strength or a weakness is the source of some debate in the literature; however, the general opinion within health technology assessment is that modelling produces information that is more directly relevant to the decision-making context.
The results shown in Figures 13 and 14, which represent the approach identified in the analysis plan, each show one treatment to have a much higher probability of being cost-effective than its comparators. However, when alternative approaches are used that are more able to characterise the uncertainty around future costs, QALYs and imputed values, the probability that CPAP is the most cost-effective reduces to just over 60%. Further uncertainty could be added by using the distributions around the unit costs for emergency department treatment as estimated in the microcosting study; however, as uncertainty around all other unit costs is not typically incorporated into economic analyses, this was not pursued.
Finally, despite the modelling, some uncertainties inevitably remain, and future research could go some way to reducing these uncertainties. For example, another trial and meta-analysis could produce more precise estimates of mortality, or a cohort study could more precisely estimate the life expectancy of patients post discharge. A value of information analysis could use the economic evaluation as a starting point and produce estimates of areas in which future research would be of greatest value to policy-makers. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this report.
Chapter 5 Discussion
The 3CPO trial has shown no difference in short- or long-term mortality rates between standard oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation treatments in patients presenting to emergency departments with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. In addition, there were no major differences in treatment efficacy or safety between the two non-invasive ventilation modalities of CPAP and NIPPV. This was despite early improvements in symptoms and surrogate measures of disease severity.
Specifically, there was no demonstrable difference in any primary or secondary outcome for the comparison between non-invasive ventilation and standard oxygen therapy other than for breathlessness measured by visual analogue scale, physiology at 1 hour (pulse rate) and arterial gas exchange parameters at 1 hour (pH and pCO2). There was no clear difference in any primary or secondary outcome for the comparison between CPAP and NIPPV. Moreover, despite continuing concerns11,40 regarding the potential for an increase in MI rates in patients treated with NIPPV, the 3CPO trial has confirmed the safety of the intervention.
Interpretation of principal trial findings
These results are contrary to the findings of a number of recent meta-analyses11–16 despite similar improvements in physiological and gas exchange variables. These meta-analyses and systematic reviews of immediate treatment with non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema have reported up to a 47% reduction in mortality. 11 The 3CPO trial was adequately powered to assess this question and recruited more patients than the total combined experience of these analyses and reviews.
There are a number of potential reasons why the 3CPO trial findings do not support the results of previous small randomised controlled trials21–36 and the conclusions drawn from multiple recent meta-analyses. 11–16
Patient population
The population of patients recruited to the 3CPO trial may be different from those recruited to the 25 or so small randomised controlled trials previously reported. In particular, there may be differences in age, severity of illness, comorbidities and underlying mechanisms of heart failure. We believe this to be unlikely for the following reasons.
Based on previous studies we applied strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and targeted the group of patients most likely to benefit from non-invasive ventilation, i.e. those with respiratory distress and acidosis. These criteria are particularly relevant as this group is most likely to benefit from the additional mechanistic advantages of NIPPV. 52 Indeed, the recent trial by Nava and colleagues28 showed a reduction in intubation rates only in a hypercapnic subgroup. The baseline characteristics and event rates in the non-invasive ventilation arms were comparable to those in previous studies and demonstrate that we recruited patients with severe disease. There was no evidence of patient selection bias with identical 7-day mortality in non-recruited patients (9.2%). Indeed, this is further supported by the excellent recruitment rates of eligible patients compared with those previously reported. In keeping with previous analyses11 there was no interaction between treatment intervention and disease severity, suggesting that those with milder disease did not obscure potential benefits in the sickest patients. We therefore believe that we have robustly targeted and assessed the correct patient population.
Our trial mortality rate was higher than those in registry data (6.7%, EHFS II;53 4%, ADHERE registry54) and participants were older and predominantly female. These discrepancies in mortality and patient characteristics are likely to relate to differing study populations. Acute heart failure registries include all patients with decompensated heart failure rather than only those with severe acute pulmonary oedema. Indeed, in the EHFS registry, only 16% of patients had a qualifying diagnosis of acute pulmonary oedema.
Our patient age, male–female ratio and co-morbidities were similar to those in previous primary trials, with a mean age between 75 and 80 years, a female preponderance and highly comparable co-morbidities such as hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 23,26–28,33,36
It could be argued that a significant number of patients, given the age and sex characteristics of recruited patients, had relatively preserved systolic function, so-called diastolic heart failure, and may be more amenable to rapid vasodilatation. As echocardiography was not routinely performed as part of the trial protocol we cannot refute this; however, the rate of MI is consistent with rates in previous trials. Indeed, even using the more traditional WHO criteria for MI definition the index rates for MI are considerably higher than those in a recent large trial undertaken by Moritz and colleagues33 from France. Despite this, in-hospital mortality is identical between the two trials.
We therefore believe that patients recruited to the 3CPO trial are broadly similar to those in previous studies.
Influence of co-treatments
Although not mandated, the 3CPO trial recommended a set of co-treatments for recruited patients (Appendix 1). This specifically included buccal and intravenous nitrates. Approximately 90% of patients received this intervention. It is possible that the cardiovascular beneficial effects of non-invasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema18–20,50 have been masked by another treatment working (in particular nitrates) by the same mechanism, i.e. a reduction in preload and afterload. 55–57 Indeed, Crane56 identified prehospital nitrate as being the only factor associated with improved mortality in a UK observational study of patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Co-treatments in previous small trials have often been incompletely characterised and documented. It is therefore unclear whether there is consistency in these treatments across trials.
Ineffective delivery of trial intervention
It could be argued that one reason why this trial failed to reveal a difference in mortality was that the intervention was ineffectively delivered. Over 80% of sites had previous experience of non-invasive ventilation before the trial starting. There was a comprehensive training programme for all centres to ensure operator competence and consistency throughout the trial. We used a readily applied portable ventilator that allowed both modalities of ventilation to be delivered as well as a tolerance for leaks around the face mask of up to 50 l/min. Although unable to measure the inspired oxygen concentration, the circuit delivers an oxygen concentration of up to 60%. There was a drop in oxygen saturations and partial pressure of arterial oxygen with both CPAP and NIPPV at 1 hour but this was modest and of questionable clinical relevance. Indeed, in contrast to standard oxygen therapy there were no treatment failures due to worsening hypoxia in these intervention arms. Mean pressures for both CPAP (10 cmH2O) and NIPPV (14/7 cmH2O) are highly comparable to those in previous studies. 10,11 Mean times of delivery of the interventions were a little over 2 hours, suggesting that the patients were physiologically and symptomatically significantly better within this short time frame. There was crossover between interventions in all three arms of the trial and these were analysed on an intention to treat basis; there were differing reasons for crossover with respiratory distress and hypoxia being more likely in the control arm and lack of patient tolerance being more likely in the two intervention arms. If these patients are removed from the primary outcome analysis there remains no significant difference between groups. We therefore do not believe that the crossovers influenced the trial’s principal conclusions.
The intervention (non-invasive ventilation) is ineffective
Was the trial intervention ineffective? Irrespective of treatment modality, non-invasive ventilation produced a more rapid improvement in respiratory distress and metabolic abnormalities. These findings are consistent with the majority of previous studies investigating the benefits of CPAP and NIPPV,21–36 and confirm the successful, appropriate delivery of the therapeutic intervention in our trial. We acknowledge that improvement in breathlessness (0.7 on a 10-point scale) was modest,58 but this is a crude measure of breathlessness and, when tolerated, non-invasive ventilation was associated with fewer treatment failures due to respiratory distress. Finally, despite the theoretical additional benefits of NIPPV,52 we observed no differences in therapeutic efficacy between the two treatment modalities.
Interpretation of previous data is inaccurate
Another potential reason for the differences in findings is that the meta-analyses may be wrong. Recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been composed of numerous randomised clinical trials. However, individual trials were composed of small treatment group sizes that varied between 9 and 65 patients, with recruitment rates of only 10–30% (compare with 62% randomised in the 3CPO trial). In the meta-analyses the small total number of outcome events was well below the recommended threshold of 20059 and this limits the generalisability of their findings. There is real concern of reporting, publication and recruitment bias in individual published studies that will be compounded by pooled analysis. The discrepancy between our results in the setting of a large randomised controlled trial and previous pooled data is not unique, and the limitations of meta-analysis are well reported. 60
Differing thresholds for endotracheal intubation and critical care admission
Previous trials have indicated that the physiological improvement seen with non-invasive ventilation is translated into a reduction in tracheal intubation rates. 10,11 Pooled data from the meta-analysis by Peter and colleagues11 suggest that six patients need to be treated with CPAP and seven with NIPPV to avoid one patient being intubated and mechanically ventilated. In contrast, the 3CPO trial found no benefit of non-invasive ventilation in reducing intubation rates and this may reflect the relatively low intubation rates we observed. Reasons for this are unclear but may reflect the differing patient populations, concomitant therapies and thresholds for intubation and mechanical ventilation across different countries, clinical environments and time periods. Intubation rates in the standard therapy arms vary from 35–65% in initial trials22,23 to 5–7% for recent trials in emergency department settings,26,36 despite a similar severity of illness, in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay. Intubation rates in the intervention arms have also fallen considerably over time with some initial trials reporting rates of up to 35% whereas recent reports have consistently suggested rates of around 5%. Indeed, a recent large trial33 from France has reported a 3% intubation rate, which is almost identical to that in the 3CPO trial. Given that the present and previous trials were by necessity ‘open’, there is real concern of treatment bias with a differing threshold for intervention according to treatment allocation. For example, patients on standard oxygen therapy may be more likely to undergo intubation than those already gaining the apparent benefit of non-invasive ventilation. Additionally, clinicians may persevere with patients slow to improve with non-invasive ventilation if they believe in its efficacy. It is important to note that intubation does not correlate with mortality in our trial or severity of illness in those previously reported. 11
Safety and side effects
Mehta and colleagues21 prematurely terminated their trial comparing CPAP with NIPPV because of the concerns of an increase in MI rate in the NIPPV arm. A subsequent study by Bellone and colleagues31 did not replicate this finding and demonstrated no effect of NIPPV on MI rate. The systematic review by Peter and colleagues11 reported a weak relationship between the delivery of NIPPV and an increase in MI rate. This finding was largely the result of the weighting of Mehta’s study21 in the pooled data. The 3CPO trial has shown that there is no relationship between MI rate and the application of either CPAP or NIPPV. Similar to previous reports, side effects directly related to the interventions were rare and resulted in no significant reported consequences.
Implications for practice
Non-invasive ventilation is widely used in UK emergency departments for patients with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. 37 Given the results of this trial we believe that CPAP should be the non-invasive ventilation modality of choice, as NIPPV provides no additional benefit over CPAP and CPAP equipment is less complex and less expensive. In addition, a number of simple systems allow the delivery of 100% oxygen. Clearly if a department already has equipment in use or is using NIPPV for other clinical conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease then this will influence the decision as to the ventilation mode and equipment type used for pulmonary oedema. Lastly, we believe that in the majority of patients medical therapy should be instigated as the primary treatment of severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and non-invasive ventilation reserved for those patients who have significant respiratory distress and failure or those not improving with standard medical therapy.
Chapter 6 Conclusions
Non-invasive ventilatory support delivered by either CPAP or NIPPV safely provides earlier improvement and resolution of breathlessness, respiratory distress and metabolic abnormalities. However, this does not translate into improved survival. We recommend that non-invasive ventilation (CPAP or NIPPV) should be considered as adjunctive therapy in patients with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in the presence of severe respiratory distress or when there is a failure to improve with pharmacological therapy.
Acknowledgements
Trial management group
Alasdair Gray* (Chief Investigator), Reader and Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; David Newby,* Professor of Cardiology and Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Steve Goodacre,* Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, and Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Sheffield; Jon Nicholl,* Professor, Health Service Research, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield; Catherine Kelly,* Consultant Physician in Acute Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Steven Crane,* Consultant in Emergency Medicine, York Hospital; Mark Elliott,* Consultant Respiratory and General Physician, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds; Neil Douglas,* Professor of Sleep Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Taj Hassan,* Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Leeds General Infirmary; Paul Plant,* Consultant in Respiratory Medicine, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds; Fiona Sampson, Research Fellow, University of Sheffield; Kathryn Paulucy, Clerical Officer, University of Sheffield; Moyra Masson, Trial Manager, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Yemi Oluboyede, Research Associate, University of Sheffield; Katherine Stevens, Health Economist, University of Sheffield.
Regional research co-ordinators
Yvonne Meades, Leeds General Infirmary; Anne Saunderson and Eilidh Mowat, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Vanessa Lawler, Emma Gendall and Hannah Purvis, Frenchay Hospital, Bristol; Elma Norwood, Crosshouse Hospital; Tom Woodrow and Zoë Gall, Hope Hospital; Clare Roberts, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital; Diana Mill, Torbay Hospital; Jayne Groves, Joanne Gilks and Gloria Symmons, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital; Yvonne Whattam, the James Cook University Hospital.
Trial steering committee
Tim Coats (Chair), Professor of Emergency Medicine, Leicester Royal Infirmary; Robert Davies, Consultant Respiratory Physician, Director Respiratory Trials Unit, Oxford; Mark Elliott, Consultant Respiratory and General Physician, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds; Steve Goodacre, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, and Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Sheffield; Alasdair Gray (Chief Investigator), Reader and Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; David Newby, Professor of Cardiology and Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Theresa McDonagh, Reader and Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Brompton Hospital, London; Moyra Masson, Trial Manager, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh; Patricia Hall, Consumer Representative, Edinburgh; ex officio representative NIHR HTA programme.
Data monitoring committee
Robin Prescott (Chairperson), Director of Medical Statistics and Professor of Health Technology Assessment, University of Edinburgh; Allister Hargreaves, Consultant Cardiologist, Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary; Colin Selby, Consultant Respiratory Physician, Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline; Ursula MacIntosh, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Stirling Royal Infirmary.
Recruiting sites, clinical leads and patients recruited
Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Alasdair Gray (n = 161); Southern General Hospital, Glasgow, Phil Munro (n = 23); Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Neil Nichol (n = 21); Crosshouse Hospital, Crawford McGuffie (n = 50); Hairmyres Hospital, Kilmarnock, John Keaney (n = 28); Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, Steve Goodacre (n = 136); York Hospital, Steve Crane (n = 63); St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, Steve Bush (n = 56); Leeds General Hospital, Taj Hassan (n = 37); Barnsley Hospital, Jane Brenchley (n = 54); Harrogate Hospital, Helen Law (n = 19); Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield, Matt Shepherd (n = 8); Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, Jason Kendall (n = 68); Royal United Hospital, Bath, Dominic Williamson (n = 60); Bristol Royal Infirmary, Jonathan Benger (n = 32); Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Gavin Lloyd (n = 39); Torbay Hospital, Torquay, Simon Cope (n = 31); Hope Hospital, Salford, Carole Gavin (n = 29); Manchester Royal Infirmary, John Butler (n = 28); Whiston Hospital, Prescot, Francis Andrews (n = 29); Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, Darren Walter (n = 21); Warrington Hospital, Mary Higgins (n = 11); Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Anthony Bleetman (n = 19); Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, Peter Doyle (n = 30); James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, Patrick Dissmann (n = 11); Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough, Ian Stell (n = 5).
Other acknowledgements
Xin Shi, Research Associate in Statistics, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, for contribution to the analysis of the health economic evaluation.
Contributions of the authors
Alasdair Gray contributed to the conception and design of the study, interpretation of the data, first draft and revising of the report, and final approval. Steve Goodacre contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the economics section, revising of the report and final approval. David Newby contributed to the conception and design of the study, interpretation of the data, revising of the report and final approval. Moyra Masson contributed to the design of the study, the first draft of the methods section and final approval. Fiona Sampson contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the data, the first draft of the methods section and final approval. Simon Dixon contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the health economic data, the first draft of the methods section and final approval. Steven Crane contributed to the conception and design of the study, revising of the report and final approval. Mark Elliott contributed to the conception and design of the study, revising of the report and final approval. Jon Nicholl contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting of the economics section, revising of the report and final approval.
Publications
Gray A, Elliott MW, Goodacre S, Newby DE, Sampson F, Nicholl J, et al. Non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: the 3CPO trial (a multicentre randomised controlled trial). Thorax 2007;62(Suppl.):A8.
Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby D, Nicholl J, Masson M, Sampson F. The 3CPO trial: the clinical effectiveness of CPAP and NIV in patients presenting to Emergency Departments with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Emerg Med J 2007;24(Suppl. 1):A5.
Gray A, Goodacre S, Masson M, Newby D, Nicholl J, Sampson F. A simple risk score to predict early outcome in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Eur J Emerg Med 2008;15:306:A5.
Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby DE, Masson M, Sampson F, Nicholl J, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med 2008;359:142–51.
Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby D. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2068–9.
Disclaimers
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the HTA programme or the Department of Health.
References
- Felker GM, Adams KF, Konstam MA, O’Connor CM, Gheorghiade M. The problem of decompensated heart failure: nomenclature, classification, and risk stratification. Am Heart J 2003;145:18-25.
- De Luca L, Fonarow GC, Adams KF, Mebazza A, Tavazzi L, Swedberg K, et al. Acute heart failure syndromes: clinical scenarios and pathophysiologic targets for therapy. Heart Fail Rev 2007;12:97-104.
- Rudiger A, Harjola VP, Muller A, Mattila E, Saila P, Nieminen M, et al. Acute heart failure: clinical presentation, one-year mortality and prognostic factors. Eur J Heart Fail 2005;7:662-70.
- Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Lucci D, Cacciatore G, Ansalone G, Oliva F, et al. Nationwide survey on acute heart failure in cardiology ward services in Italy. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1207-15.
- Stevenson R, Ranjadayalan K, Wilkinson P, Roberts R, Timmis AD. Short and long term prognosis of acute myocardial infarction since introduction of thrombolysis. Br Med J 1993;307:349-53.
- Zannad F, Mebazza A, Juilliere Y, Cohen-Solal A, Guize L, Alla F, et al. Clinical profile, contemporary management and one-year mortality in patients with severe acute heart failure syndromes: the EFICA study. Eur J Heart Fail 2006;8:697-705.
- Girou E, Brun-Buisson C, Taille S, Lemaire F, Brochard L. Secular trends in nosocomial infections and mortality associated with noninvasive ventilation in patients with exacerbation of COPD and pulmonary edema. JAMA 2003;290:2985-91.
- Stauffer JL, Olsen DE, Petty TL. Complications and consequences of endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy: a prospective study of 150 critically ill patients. Am J Med 1980;70:65-76.
- Fagon JY, Chastre J, Hance AJ, Montravers P, Novara A, Gibert C. Nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients: a cohort study evaluating attributable mortality and hospital stay. Am J Med 1993;94:281-8.
- Masip J, Roque M, Sanchez B, Fernandez R, Subirana M, Exposito JA. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2005;294:3124-30.
- Peter JV, Moran JL, Phillips-Hughes J, Graham P, Bersten AD. Effect of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) on mortality in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367:1155-63.
- Collins SP, Mileniczuk LM, Whittingham HA, Boseley ME, Schramm DR, Storrow AB. The use of noninvasive ventilation in emergency department patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med 2006;48:260-9.
- Ho KM, Wong K. A comparison of continuous and bi-level positive airway pressure non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a meta-analysis. Crit Care 2006;10.
- Winck JC, Azevedo LF, Costa-Pereira A, Antonelli M, Wyatt JC. Efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2006;10.
- Agarwal R, Aggarwal AN, Gupta D, Jindal SK. Non-invasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Postgrad Med J 2005;81:637-43.
- Nadar S, Prasad N, Taylor RS, Lip GY. Positive pressure ventilation in the management of acute and chronic cardiac failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2005;99:171-85.
- Katz JA, Marks JD. Inspiratory work with and without continuous positive airway pressure in patients with acute respiratory failure. Anesthesiology 1985;63:598-607.
- Naughton MT, Rahman MA, Hara K, Floras JS, Bradley TD. Effect of continuous positive airway pressure on intrathoracic and left ventricular transmural pressure in patients with congestive heart failure. Circulation 1995;91:1725-31.
- Lenique F, Habis M, Lofaso F, Dubois-Rande JL, Harf A, Brochard L. Ventilatory and haemodynamic effects of continuous positive airway pressure in left heart failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997;155:500-5.
- Baratz DM, Westbrook PR, Shah PK, Mohsenifar Z. Effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on cardiac output and oxygen delivery in patients with congestive heart failure. Chest 1992;102:1397-401.
- Mehta S, Jay GD, Woolard RH, Hipona RA, Connolly EM, Cimini DM, et al. Randomised, prospective trial of bilevel versus continuous positive airway pressure in acute pulmonary edema. Crit Care Med 1997;25:620-8.
- Räsänen J, Heikkila J, Downs J, Nikki P, Vaisanen I, Viitanen A. Continuous positive airway pressure by face mask in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Am J Cardiol 1985;55:296-300.
- Bersten AD, Holt AW, Vedig AE, Skowronski GA, Baggoley CJ. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1825-30.
- Lin M, Yang YF, Chiang HT, Chang MS, Chiang BN, Cheitlin MD. Reappraisal of continuous positive airway pressure therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Short-term results and long-term follow-up. Chest 1995;107:1379-86.
- Takeda S, Nejima J, Takano T, Nakanishi K, Takayama M, Sakamoto A, et al. Effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on pulmonary edema complicating acute myocardial infarction. Jpn Circ J 1998;62:553-8.
- Kelly CA, Newby DE, McDonagh TA, Mackay TW, Barr J, Boon NA, et al. Randomised controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure and standard therapy in acute pulmonary oedema; effects on plasma brain natriuretic peptide concentrations. Eur Heart J 2002;23:1379-86.
- L’Her E, Duquesne F, Girou E, de Rosiere XD, Le Conte P, Renault S, et al. Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in elderly cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients. Intensive Care Med 2004;30:882-8.
- Nava S, Carbone G, DiBattista N, Bellone A, Baiardi P, Cosentini R, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a multicenter randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;168:1432-7.
- Masip J, Betbese AJ, Paez J, Vecilla F, Canizares R, Padro J, et al. Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomised trial. Lancet 2000;356:2126-32.
- Levitt MA. A prospective, randomized trial of BiPAP in severe acute congestive heart failure. J Emerg Med 2001;21:363-9.
- Bellone A, Monari A, Cortellaro F, Vettorello M, Arlati S, Coen D. Myocardial infarction rate in acute pulmonary edema: noninvasive pressure support ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1860-5.
- Bellone A, Vettorello M, Monari A, Cortellaro F, Coen D. Noninvasive pressure support ventilation vs. continuous positive airway pressure in acute hypercapnic pulmonary edema. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:807-11.
- Moritz F, Brousse B, Gellee B, Chajara A, L’Her E, Hellot M, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure versus bilevel noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomised multicenter trial. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50:666-75.
- Park M, Lorenzi-Filho G, Feltrim MI, Viecili PR, Sangean MC, Volpe M. Oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure, or non-invasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Arq Bras Cardiol 2001;76:221-30.
- Park M, Sangean MC, Volpe Mde S, Feltrim MI, Nozawa E, Leite PF, et al. Randomized, prospective trial of oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure by face mask in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Crit Care Med 2004;32:2407-15.
- Crane SD, Elliott MW, Gilligan P, Richards K, Gray AJ. Randomised controlled comparison of continuous positive airways pressure, bilevel non-invasive ventilation, and standard treatment in emergency department patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Emerg Med J 2004;21:155-61.
- Browning J, Atwood B, Gray A. Use of non-invasive ventilation in UK emergency departments. Emerg Med J 2006;23:920-1.
- British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee . Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Thorax 2002;57:192-211.
- International Consensus Conferences in Intensive Care Medicine: noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:283-91.
- Silvers SM, Howell JM, Kosowosky JM, Rokos IC, Jagoda AS. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute heart failure syndromes. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:627-69.
- Pang D, Keenan SP, Cook DJ, Sibbald WJ. The effect of positive pressure airway support on mortality and the need for intubation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a systematic review. Chest 1998;114:1185-92.
- Kelly C, Newby DE, Boon NA, Douglas NJ. Support ventilation versus conventional oxygen. Lancet 2001;357.
- Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
- Alpert JS, Thygesen K, Antman E, Bassand JP. Myocardial infarction redefined – a consensus document of the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:959-69.
- Ware JE, Davies AR. GHAA’s consumer satisfaction survey and user’s manual. Washington, DC: GHAA; 1991.
- Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004.
- Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L. The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Ann Rev Public Health 2002;23:151-69.
- Alla F, Zannad F, Filippatos G. Epidemiology of acute heart failure syndromes. Heart Fail Rev 2007;12:91-5.
- Medical Research Council . Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials 1998.
- Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191-4.
- Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury, Kent: Personal and Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury; 2007.
- Chadda K, Annane D, Hart N, Gajdos P, Raphael JC, Lofaso F. Cardiac and respiratory effects of continuous positive airway pressure and noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiac pulmonary edema. Crit Care Med 2002;30:2457-61.
- Nieminen MS, Brutsaert D, Dickstein K, Drexler H, Follath F, Harjola VP, et al. EuroHeart Failure Survey II (EHFS II): a survey on hospitalized acute heart failure patients: description of population. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2725-36.
- Adams KF, Fonarow GC, Emerman CL, LeJemtel TH, Costanzo MR, Abraham WT, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in the United States: rationale, design, and preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J 2005;149:209-16.
- Cotter G, Metzkor E, Kaluski E, Faigenberg Z, Miller R, Simovitz A, et al. Randomised trial of high-dose isosorbide dinitrate plus low-dose furosemide versus high-dose furosemide plus low-dose isosorbide dinitrate in severe pulmonary oedema. Lancet 1998;351:389-93.
- Crane SD. Epidemiology, treatment and outcome of acidotic, acute, cardiogenic pulmonary oedema presenting to an emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2002;9:320-4.
- Graham CA. Pharmacological therapy of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16:47-54.
- Karras DJ, Sammon ME, Terregino CA, Lopez BL, Griswold SK, Arnold GK. Clinical meaningful changes in quantitative measures of asthma severity. Acad Emerg Med 2007;7:327-34.
- Flather MD, Farkouh ME, Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Strengths and limitations of meta-analysis: larger studies may be more reliable. Control Clin Trials 1997;18:568-79.
- Le Lorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomised controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997;337:536-42.
- Takeda S, Takano T, Oqawa R. The effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on plasma endothelin-1 concentrations in patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Anesth Analg 1997;84:1091-6.
Appendix 1 Treatment guidelines
Cardiogenic pulmonary oedema
Appendix 2 Patient information sheet
PATIENT INFORMATION SHEET FOR 3CPO STUDY
You are being invited to take part in a RESEARCH study because you have acute heart failure, which has left fluid on your lungs. Please read the following information carefully.
Participation is entirely VOLUNTARY, and you need not give a reason for declining to participate.
If you do decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. This will not affect the standard of care you receive.
You will be involved in the research for around 2 hours in the emergency department (A&E) whilst the early treatment of your condition is going on.
In this study, we are comparing three different ways of delivering oxygen because we do not know which one is best. ALL patients in this study will receive the usual drug treatment for acute heart failure and oxygen.
However, the oxygen may be delivered in one of THREE different ways:
-
by a simple face mask
-
by a tight-fitting face mask connected to a breathing machine (ventilator) that is delivering oxygen at one continuous pressure (CPAP)
-
by a tight-fitting face mask connected to a breathing machine (ventilator) that is delivering oxygen at a higher pressure when you breathe in than when you breathe out (NIPPV).
These treatments will be selected entirely at random by a computer (i.e. by chance). There is a one in three chance of receiving any of the treatments. Patients in the three groups will then be receiving oxygen in three different ways and these will be compared.
There may be some side effects to treatment with the non-invasive ventilator machine and these include:
-
minor skin damage to the face due to the tight-fitting mask
-
vomiting
-
a drop in blood pressure
-
claustrophobia.
We plan to monitor all patients very closely so that all of these problems can be quickly identified and treated.
All information that is collected about you during the course of this study will be kept strictly confidential. Any information about you that leaves the hospital will have your name and address separated from it so that you cannot be identified from it and will only be used by individuals directly involved in the research project.
The study has been approved by a Multicentre Research Ethics Committee and reviewed by the Local Research Ethics Committee.
Further information can be obtained from:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP WITH THIS STUDY
Appendix 3 Relative information sheet
RELATIVES INFORMATION SHEET FOR 3CPO STUDY
(Is non-invasive ventilation effective in patients with acute heart failure?)
Your relative is being invited to take part in a RESEARCH study. However, as your relative is unwell, you are being asked to read the following information carefully, to discuss it with others and to ask us if you would like further information about the study. Thank you for taking the time to read this. You will be given this information sheet to keep.
Why has my relative been chosen as a potential study patient?
Your relative has been chosen as a potential study patient because he/she has heart failure, which has left fluid on his/her lungs. We aim to study 1200 such patients in a nationwide research study.
What is the purpose of the study?
To find out if a machine designed to deliver oxygen under pressure into a face mask improves the condition of patients with fluid on the lungs caused by heart failure. These machines are known to help patients with other breathing problems (such as emphysema).
What treatment might my relative receive?
In this study, we are comparing three different ways of delivering oxygen because we do not know which one is best. ALL patients in this study will receive the usual drug treatment for acute heart failure and oxygen.
However, the oxygen may be delivered in one of THREE different ways:
-
by a simple face mask
-
by a tight-fitting face mask connected to a breathing machine (ventilator) that is delivering oxygen at one continuous pressure (CPAP)
-
by a tight-fitting face mask connected to a breathing machine (ventilator) that is delivering oxygen at a higher pressure when you breathe in than when you breathe out (NIPPV).
These treatments will be selected entirely at random by a computer (i.e. by chance). There is a one in three chance of receiving any of the treatments. Patients in the three groups will then be receiving oxygen in three different ways and these will be compared.
Are there any side effects to treatment?
There may be some side effects to treatment and these include:
-
minor skin damage to the face due to the tight-fitting mask
-
vomiting
-
a drop in blood pressure
-
claustrophobia.
We plan to monitor all patients very closely so that all of these problems can be quickly identified and treated.
How long will the research study last?
If, in your opinion, your relative WOULD consent to be enrolled, he/she will be involved in the research for around 2 hours in the emergency department (A&E) whilst the early treatment of his/her condition is going on. No additional tests or clinic visits will be required. However, we will send your relative a questionnaire by post at 1, 3 and 6 months after the date of their hospital admission to help us assess how well they are. We may telephone your relative at home to remind them to fill in these questionnaires.
Why is my opinion important?
You are being asked to read this sheet so that you are aware that we are conducting the research and that we would like to enrol your relative in the study. As you know your relative much better than we do, we would like you to give your opinion as to whether or not your relative would agree to take part in the study if he/she was well enough to make an informed choice.
YOUR RELATIVE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO MAY GIVE CONSENT TO BE INVOLVED IN A RESEARCH STUDY OF THIS KIND. As his/her relative, you are being asked only for your opinion as to whether or not they would consent to be enrolled if they were well enough to do so. This will help us to ensure that we do not enrol someone who would feel very unhappy about taking part in the research. The doctor looking after your relative (and NOT you) is taking responsibility for all the treatments that your relative receives and will at all times ensure that those treatments are in his/her best interests.
What happens to my relative if I say ‘No’?
If you do NOT think that your relative would agree to take part OR you yourself feel unable to give your opinion, then your relative will NOT be enrolled into the study. This will not affect the standard of care your relative receives, and all the subsequent treatments given will be undertaken by the doctor in his/her best interests.
What happens if I say ‘Yes’ but my relative is subsequently unhappy to continue to take part in the study?
As your relative is too ill to provide informed consent for this research himself or herself, we will talk to them at a later date (when their health has improved) about the research project and to obtain their personal consent to continued participation in it. A member of the research team will speak to your relative about the research to ensure that they are happy to continue to be part of the project. Your relative will then be free to provide their own informed consent to take part in the research or to withdraw from the project if they so wish. This will not affect the standard of care they receive or their legal rights.
If your relative decides to withdraw from the study after initially being enrolled then only the information already collected about your relative will be used in any subsequent data analysis for the purposes of the research. It will, however, remain in their medical records to assist in the treatment of their medical condition.
How will my relative’s confidentiality be maintained?
Your relatives medical records may be inspected for the purpose of analysing the results. All information that is collected about them during the course of this study will be kept strictly confidential. Any information about them that leaves the hospital will have their name and address separated from it so that they cannot be identified. We hope to publish the results of this study in medical journals, but their name will not be entered in any publication.
Other information
Sometimes, during the course of a research project, new information becomes available about the treatment being studied. If this happens your research doctor will tell your relative about it and discuss whether they want to continue in the study. If you or they decide to withdraw, the research doctor will make arrangements for your relative’s care to continue. An updated consent form will be provided.
If your relative is harmed during the course of this research project there are no special compensation arrangements. If they are harmed because of someone’s negligence you or they may have grounds for legal action but may have to pay for it. If you or your relative wish to complain about any aspect of the way they have been approached or treated during the course of this study, the normal NHS complaints mechanisms should be available to you.
We hope that all the treatments will help your relative. However, this cannot be guaranteed. The information we get from this study may help us to improve the treatment of future patients.
The study has been approved by a Multicentre Research Ethics Committee and reviewed by the Local Research Ethics Committee.
Further information can be obtained from:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP WITH THIS STUDY
Appendix 4 Patient consent form
Appendix 5 Relative opinion form
Appendix 6 Retrospective information sheet
Appendix 7 Retrospective consent form
Appendix 8 Patient satisfaction with care questionnaire
Appendix 9 Main data collection form
Appendix 10 Recruitment form
List of abbreviations
- CPAP
- continuous positive airway pressure
- EPAP
- expiratory positive airway pressure
- EQ-5D
- EuroQol 5 dimensions
- ICER
- incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
- ICU
- intensive care unit
- IPAP
- inspiratory positive airway pressure
- MI
- myocardial infarction
- NICE
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
- NIPPV
- non-invasive positive pressure ventilation
- OR
- odds ratio
- PAS
- patient administrative system
- QALY
- quality-adjusted life-year
- WHO
- World Health Organization
All abbreviations that have been used in this report are listed here unless the abbreviation is well known (e.g. NHS), or it has been used only once, or it is a non-standard abbreviation used only in figures/tables/appendices, in which case the abbreviation is defined in the figure legend or in the notes at the end of the table.
Notes
Health Technology Assessment reports published to date
-
Home parenteral nutrition: a systematic review.
By Richards DM, Deeks JJ, Sheldon TA, Shaffer JL.
-
Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer.
A review by Selley S, Donovan J, Faulkner A, Coast J, Gillatt D.
-
The diagnosis, management, treatment and costs of prostate cancer in England and Wales.
A review by Chamberlain J, Melia J, Moss S, Brown J.
-
Screening for fragile X syndrome.
A review by Murray J, Cuckle H, Taylor G, Hewison J.
-
A review of near patient testing in primary care.
By Hobbs FDR, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Wilson S, Hyde CJ, Thorpe GH, et al.
-
Systematic review of outpatient services for chronic pain control.
By McQuay HJ, Moore RA, Eccleston C, Morley S, de C Williams AC.
-
Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome.
A review by Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ, Booth A, Cooper NJ, Leonard JV, et al.
-
Preschool vision screening.
A review by Snowdon SK, Stewart-Brown SL.
-
Implications of socio-cultural contexts for the ethics of clinical trials.
A review by Ashcroft RE, Chadwick DW, Clark SRL, Edwards RHT, Frith L, Hutton JL.
-
A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment.
By Davis A, Bamford J, Wilson I, Ramkalawan T, Forshaw M, Wright S.
-
Newborn screening for inborn errors of metabolism: a systematic review.
By Seymour CA, Thomason MJ, Chalmers RA, Addison GM, Bain MD, Cockburn F, et al.
-
Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence.
By Munro J, Booth A, Nicholl J.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness of laxatives in the elderly.
By Petticrew M, Watt I, Sheldon T.
-
When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies.
A review by Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, Cairns JA, Grant AM, McKee L.
-
Antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome.
A review by Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, McGuire A.
-
Screening for ovarian cancer: a systematic review.
By Bell R, Petticrew M, Luengo S, Sheldon TA.
-
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
A review by Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, Askham J, et al.
-
A cost–utility analysis of interferon beta for multiple sclerosis.
By Parkin D, McNamee P, Jacoby A, Miller P, Thomas S, Bates D.
-
Effectiveness and efficiency of methods of dialysis therapy for end-stage renal disease: systematic reviews.
By MacLeod A, Grant A, Donaldson C, Khan I, Campbell M, Daly C, et al.
-
Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model.
By Faulkner A, Kennedy LG, Baxter K, Donovan J, Wilkinson M, Bevan G.
-
Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
By Song F, Glenny AM.
-
Bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for malignancy.
A review by Johnson PWM, Simnett SJ, Sweetenham JW, Morgan GJ, Stewart LA.
-
Screening for speech and language delay: a systematic review of the literature.
By Law J, Boyle J, Harris F, Harkness A, Nye C.
-
Resource allocation for chronic stable angina: a systematic review of effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions.
By Sculpher MJ, Petticrew M, Kelland JL, Elliott RA, Holdright DR, Buxton MJ.
-
Detection, adherence and control of hypertension for the prevention of stroke: a systematic review.
By Ebrahim S.
-
Postoperative analgesia and vomiting, with special reference to day-case surgery: a systematic review.
By McQuay HJ, Moore RA.
-
Choosing between randomised and nonrandomised studies: a systematic review.
By Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C.
-
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
A review by Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR.
-
Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomised controlled trials.
A review by Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Jackson JC, Hewison J, Thornton J.
-
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
By Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P.
-
The costs and benefits of paramedic skills in pre-hospital trauma care.
By Nicholl J, Hughes S, Dixon S, Turner J, Yates D.
-
Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound in gastro-oesophageal cancer.
By Harris KM, Kelly S, Berry E, Hutton J, Roderick P, Cullingworth J, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of trials and other studies.
By Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F.
-
Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses.
A review by Fitzpatrick R, Shortall E, Sculpher M, Murray D, Morris R, Lodge M, et al.
-
Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review.
By Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, Connelly JB, Hewison J, Robinson MB, et al.
-
Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions.
A review by Briggs AH, Gray AM.
-
The role of expectancies in the placebo effect and their use in the delivery of health care: a systematic review.
By Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Thomas H.
-
A randomised controlled trial of different approaches to universal antenatal HIV testing: uptake and acceptability. Annex: Antenatal HIV testing – assessment of a routine voluntary approach.
By Simpson WM, Johnstone FD, Boyd FM, Goldberg DJ, Hart GJ, Gormley SM, et al.
-
Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review.
By Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JAC, Burney PGJ.
-
Assessing the costs of healthcare technologies in clinical trials.
A review by Johnston K, Buxton MJ, Jones DR, Fitzpatrick R.
-
Cooperatives and their primary care emergency centres: organisation and impact.
By Hallam L, Henthorne K.
-
Screening for cystic fibrosis.
A review by Murray J, Cuckle H, Taylor G, Littlewood J, Hewison J.
-
A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation.
By Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A.
-
Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment.
A review by Billingham LJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR.
-
Antenatal and neonatal haemoglobinopathy screening in the UK: review and economic analysis.
By Zeuner D, Ades AE, Karnon J, Brown J, Dezateux C, Anionwu EN.
-
Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses.
A review by Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, et al.
-
‘Early warning systems’ for identifying new healthcare technologies.
By Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J.
-
A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme.
By Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al.
-
Near patient testing in diabetes clinics: appraising the costs and outcomes.
By Grieve R, Beech R, Vincent J, Mazurkiewicz J.
-
Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment.
A review by Robert G, Milne R.
-
The debridement of chronic wounds: a systematic review.
By Bradley M, Cullum N, Sheldon T.
-
Systematic reviews of wound care management: (2) Dressings and topical agents used in the healing of chronic wounds.
By Bradley M, Cullum N, Nelson EA, Petticrew M, Sheldon T, Torgerson D.
-
A systematic literature review of spiral and electron beam computed tomography: with particular reference to clinical applications in hepatic lesions, pulmonary embolus and coronary artery disease.
By Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, Harris KM, Roderick P, Boyce JC, et al.
-
What role for statins? A review and economic model.
By Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G, McCabe C, Payne N, Pickin M, Sheldon TA, et al.
-
Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials.
A review by Prescott RJ, Counsell CE, Gillespie WJ, Grant AM, Russell IT, Kiauka S, et al.
-
Antimicrobial prophylaxis in total hip replacement: a systematic review.
By Glenny AM, Song F.
-
Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.
By Lister-Sharp D, Chapman S, Stewart-Brown S, Sowden A.
-
Economic evaluation of a primary care-based education programme for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
A review by Lord J, Victor C, Littlejohns P, Ross FM, Axford JS.
-
The estimation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) project.
A review by Cairns JA, van der Pol MM.
-
Geriatric rehabilitation following fractures in older people: a systematic review.
By Cameron I, Crotty M, Currie C, Finnegan T, Gillespie L, Gillespie W, et al.
-
Screening for sickle cell disease and thalassaemia: a systematic review with supplementary research.
By Davies SC, Cronin E, Gill M, Greengross P, Hickman M, Normand C.
-
Community provision of hearing aids and related audiology services.
A review by Reeves DJ, Alborz A, Hickson FS, Bamford JM.
-
False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications.
By Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K.
-
Costs and benefits of community postnatal support workers: a randomised controlled trial.
By Morrell CJ, Spiby H, Stewart P, Walters S, Morgan A.
-
Implantable contraceptives (subdermal implants and hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives: two systematic reviews to assess relative effectiveness, acceptability, tolerability and cost-effectiveness.
By French RS, Cowan FM, Mansour DJA, Morris S, Procter T, Hughes D, et al.
-
An introduction to statistical methods for health technology assessment.
A review by White SJ, Ashby D, Brown PJ.
-
Disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.
By Clegg A, Bryant J, Milne R.
-
Publication and related biases.
A review by Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ.
-
Cost and outcome implications of the organisation of vascular services.
By Michaels J, Brazier J, Palfreyman S, Shackley P, Slack R.
-
Monitoring blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.
By Coster S, Gulliford MC, Seed PT, Powrie JK, Swaminathan R.
-
The effectiveness of domiciliary health visiting: a systematic review of international studies and a selective review of the British literature.
By Elkan R, Kendrick D, Hewitt M, Robinson JJA, Tolley K, Blair M, et al.
-
The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.
By Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Sowden A, Kleijnen J.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth.
A rapid review by Song F, O’Meara S, Wilson P, Golder S, Kleijnen J.
-
Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women’s views.
By Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, Mugford M, Neilson J, Roberts T, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer.
By Lister-Sharp D, McDonagh MS, Khan KS, Kleijnen J.
-
Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review.
By Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E.
-
Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive–behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in primary care.
By King M, Sibbald B, Ward E, Bower P, Lloyd M, Gabbay M, et al.
-
Routine referral for radiography of patients presenting with low back pain: is patients’ outcome influenced by GPs’ referral for plain radiography?
By Kerry S, Hilton S, Patel S, Dundas D, Rink E, Lord J.
-
Systematic reviews of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration.
By O’Meara S, Cullum N, Majid M, Sheldon T.
-
Using routine data to complement and enhance the results of randomised controlled trials.
By Lewsey JD, Leyland AH, Murray GD, Boddy FA.
-
Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review.
By Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, Stevens A, Burls A, Hyde C.
-
Outcome measures for adult critical care: a systematic review.
By Hayes JA, Black NA, Jenkinson C, Young JD, Rowan KM, Daly K, et al.
-
A systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to promote the initiation of breastfeeding.
By Fairbank L, O’Meara S, Renfrew MJ, Woolridge M, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D.
-
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators: arrhythmias. A rapid and systematic review.
By Parkes J, Bryant J, Milne R.
-
Treatments for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.
By Brañas P, Jordan R, Fry-Smith A, Burls A, Hyde C.
-
Early asthma prophylaxis, natural history, skeletal development and economy (EASE): a pilot randomised controlled trial.
By Baxter-Jones ADG, Helms PJ, Russell G, Grant A, Ross S, Cairns JA, et al.
-
Screening for hypercholesterolaemia versus case finding for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.
By Marks D, Wonderling D, Thorogood M, Lambert H, Humphries SE, Neil HAW.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in the medical management of unstable angina.
By McDonagh MS, Bachmann LM, Golder S, Kleijnen J, ter Riet G.
-
A randomised controlled trial of prehospital intravenous fluid replacement therapy in serious trauma.
By Turner J, Nicholl J, Webber L, Cox H, Dixon S, Yates D.
-
Intrathecal pumps for giving opioids in chronic pain: a systematic review.
By Williams JE, Louw G, Towlerton G.
-
Combination therapy (interferon alfa and ribavirin) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a rapid and systematic review.
By Shepherd J, Waugh N, Hewitson P.
-
A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.
By MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS.
-
Intravascular ultrasound-guided interventions in coronary artery disease: a systematic literature review, with decision-analytic modelling, of outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
By Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, Lindsay HSJ, Blaxill JM, Evans JA, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of counselling patients with chronic depression.
By Simpson S, Corney R, Fitzgerald P, Beecham J.
-
Systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema.
By Hoare C, Li Wan Po A, Williams H.
-
Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review.
By Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR.
-
The management of dyspepsia: a systematic review.
By Delaney B, Moayyedi P, Deeks J, Innes M, Soo S, Barton P, et al.
-
A systematic review of treatments for severe psoriasis.
By Griffiths CEM, Clark CM, Chalmers RJG, Li Wan Po A, Williams HC.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease: a rapid and systematic review.
By Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T, McIntyre L, De Broe S, Gerard K, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of riluzole for motor neurone disease: a rapid and systematic review.
By Stewart A, Sandercock J, Bryan S, Hyde C, Barton PM, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
Equity and the economic evaluation of healthcare.
By Sassi F, Archard L, Le Grand J.
-
Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood.
By Eiser C, Morse R.
-
Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques.
By Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al.
-
General health status measures for people with cognitive impairment: learning disability and acquired brain injury.
By Riemsma RP, Forbes CA, Glanville JM, Eastwood AJ, Kleijnen J.
-
An assessment of screening strategies for fragile X syndrome in the UK.
By Pembrey ME, Barnicoat AJ, Carmichael B, Bobrow M, Turner G.
-
Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners.
By Lilford RJ, Richardson A, Stevens A, Fitzpatrick R, Edwards S, Rock F, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of wound care management: (5) beds; (6) compression; (7) laser therapy, therapeutic ultrasound, electrotherapy and electromagnetic therapy.
By Cullum N, Nelson EA, Flemming K, Sheldon T.
-
Effects of educational and psychosocial interventions for adolescents with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.
By Hampson SE, Skinner TC, Hart J, Storey L, Gage H, Foxcroft D, et al.
-
Effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte transplantation for hyaline cartilage defects in knees: a rapid and systematic review.
By Jobanputra P, Parry D, Fry-Smith A, Burls A.
-
Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies.
By Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma: a rapid and systematic review.
By Dinnes J, Cave C, Huang S, Major K, Milne R.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.
By Lewis R, Whiting P, ter Riet G, O’Meara S, Glanville J.
-
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.
By Burns T, Knapp M, Catty J, Healey A, Henderson J, Watt H, et al.
-
How to develop cost-conscious guidelines.
By Eccles M, Mason J.
-
The role of specialist nurses in multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.
By De Broe S, Christopher F, Waugh N.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity.
By O’Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a rapid and systematic review.
By Chilcott J, Wight J, Lloyd Jones M, Tappenden P.
-
Extended scope of nursing practice: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of appropriately trained nurses and preregistration house officers in preoperative assessment in elective general surgery.
By Kinley H, Czoski-Murray C, George S, McCabe C, Primrose J, Reilly C, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of day care for people with severe mental disorders: (1) Acute day hospital versus admission; (2) Vocational rehabilitation; (3) Day hospital versus outpatient care.
By Marshall M, Crowther R, Almaraz- Serrano A, Creed F, Sledge W, Kluiter H, et al.
-
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events.
By Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH.
-
Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment.
By Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, de Koning K.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
By Ward S, Morris E, Bansback N, Calvert N, Crellin A, Forman D, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.
By Lloyd Jones M, Hummel S, Bansback N, Orr B, Seymour M.
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.
By Brocklebank D, Ram F, Wright J, Barry P, Cates C, Davies L, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging for investigation of the knee joint.
By Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Bungay H, Hatrick C, Salas C, Parry D, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.
By Forbes C, Shirran L, Bagnall A-M, Duffy S, ter Riet G.
-
Superseded by a report published in a later volume.
-
The role of radiography in primary care patients with low back pain of at least 6 weeks duration: a randomised (unblinded) controlled trial.
By Kendrick D, Fielding K, Bentley E, Miller P, Kerslake R, Pringle M.
-
Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients.
By McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, et al.
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.
By Clegg A, Scott DA, Sidhu M, Hewitson P, Waugh N.
-
Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.
By Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G.
-
Depot antipsychotic medication in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia: (1) Meta-review; (2) Patient and nurse attitudes.
By David AS, Adams C.
-
A systematic review of controlled trials of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief psychological treatments for depression.
By Churchill R, Hunot V, Corney R, Knapp M, McGuire H, Tylee A, et al.
-
Cost analysis of child health surveillance.
By Sanderson D, Wright D, Acton C, Duree D.
-
A study of the methods used to select review criteria for clinical audit.
By Hearnshaw H, Harker R, Cheater F, Baker R, Grimshaw G.
-
Fludarabine as second-line therapy for B cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a technology assessment.
By Hyde C, Wake B, Bryan S, Barton P, Fry-Smith A, Davenport C, et al.
-
Rituximab as third-line treatment for refractory or recurrent Stage III or IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wake B, Hyde C, Bryan S, Barton P, Song F, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
A systematic review of discharge arrangements for older people.
By Parker SG, Peet SM, McPherson A, Cannaby AM, Baker R, Wilson A, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices used in the routine management of chronic asthma in older children: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Peters J, Stevenson M, Beverley C, Lim J, Smith S.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the management of obesity: a technology assessment.
By O’Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G.
-
The cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance angiography for carotid artery stenosis and peripheral vascular disease: a systematic review.
By Berry E, Kelly S, Westwood ME, Davies LM, Gough MJ, Bamford JM, et al.
-
Promoting physical activity in South Asian Muslim women through ‘exercise on prescription’.
By Carroll B, Ali N, Azam N.
-
Zanamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Burls A, Clark W, Stewart T, Preston C, Bryan S, Jefferson T, et al.
-
A review of the natural history and epidemiology of multiple sclerosis: implications for resource allocation and health economic models.
By Richards RG, Sampson FC, Beard SM, Tappenden P.
-
Screening for gestational diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Scott DA, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery for people with morbid obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Clegg AJ, Colquitt J, Sidhu MK, Royle P, Loveman E, Walker A.
-
The clinical effectiveness of trastuzumab for breast cancer: a systematic review.
By Lewis R, Bagnall A-M, Forbes C, Shirran E, Duffy S, Kleijnen J, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vinorelbine for breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Lewis R, Bagnall A-M, King S, Woolacott N, Forbes C, Shirran L, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease.
By Vale L, Wyness L, McCormack K, McKenzie L, Brazzelli M, Stearns SC.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Woolacott NF, Jones L, Forbes CA, Mather LC, Sowden AJ, Song FJ, et al.
-
A systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation of new drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: etanercept.
By Cummins C, Connock M, Fry-Smith A, Burls A.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of growth hormone in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Bryant J, Cave C, Mihaylova B, Chase D, McIntyre L, Gerard K, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of growth hormone in adults in relation to impact on quality of life: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Bryant J, Loveman E, Chase D, Mihaylova B, Cave C, Gerard K, et al.
-
Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of patients on repeat prescriptions in general practice: a randomised controlled trial.
By Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Lowe CJ, Freementle N, Vail A.
-
The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Burls A.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety.
By Kaltenthaler E, Shackley P, Stevens K, Beverley C, Parry G, Chilcott J.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride for ovarian cancer.
By Forbes C, Wilby J, Richardson G, Sculpher M, Mather L, Reimsma R.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions based on a stages-of-change approach to promote individual behaviour change.
By Riemsma RP, Pattenden J, Bridle C, Sowden AJ, Mather L, Watt IS, et al.
-
A systematic review update of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists.
By Robinson M, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Jones L, Riemsma R, Palmer S, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and barriers to implementation of thrombolytic and neuroprotective therapy for acute ischaemic stroke in the NHS.
By Sandercock P, Berge E, Dennis M, Forbes J, Hand P, Kwan J, et al.
-
A randomised controlled crossover trial of nurse practitioner versus doctor-led outpatient care in a bronchiectasis clinic.
By Caine N, Sharples LD, Hollingworth W, French J, Keogan M, Exley A, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost – consequences of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of sex offenders.
By Adi Y, Ashcroft D, Browne K, Beech A, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C.
-
Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost–utility analysis.
By Kanis JA, Brazier JE, Stevenson M, Calvert NW, Lloyd Jones M.
-
Which anaesthetic agents are cost-effective in day surgery? Literature review, national survey of practice and randomised controlled trial.
By Elliott RA Payne K, Moore JK, Davies LM, Harper NJN, St Leger AS, et al.
-
Screening for hepatitis C among injecting drug users and in genitourinary medicine clinics: systematic reviews of effectiveness, modelling study and national survey of current practice.
By Stein K, Dalziel K, Walker A, McIntyre L, Jenkins B, Horne J, et al.
-
The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature.
By Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib in chronic myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review.
By Garside R, Round A, Dalziel K, Stein K, Royle R.
-
A comparative study of hypertonic saline, daily and alternate-day rhDNase in children with cystic fibrosis.
By Suri R, Wallis C, Bush A, Thompson S, Normand C, Flather M, et al.
-
A systematic review of the costs and effectiveness of different models of paediatric home care.
By Parker G, Bhakta P, Lovett CA, Paisley S, Olsen R, Turner D, et al.
-
How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study.
By Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failure.
By Mowatt G, Vale L, Perez J, Wyness L, Fraser C, MacLeod A, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic evaluation of the effectiveness of infliximab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease.
By Clark W, Raftery J, Barton P, Song F, Fry-Smith A, Burls A.
-
A review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine anti-D prophylaxis for pregnant women who are rhesus negative.
By Chilcott J, Lloyd Jones M, Wight J, Forman K, Wray J, Beverley C, et al.
-
Systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing’s sarcoma and neuroblastoma.
By Riley RD, Burchill SA, Abrams KR, Heney D, Lambert PC, Jones DR, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of screening for Helicobacter pylori to reduce mortality and morbidity from gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease: a discrete-event simulation model.
By Roderick P, Davies R, Raftery J, Crabbe D, Pearce R, Bhandari P, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine dental checks: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Davenport C, Elley K, Salas C, Taylor-Weetman CL, Fry-Smith A, Bryan S, et al.
-
A multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the costs and benefits of using structured information and analysis of women’s preferences in the management of menorrhagia.
By Kennedy ADM, Sculpher MJ, Coulter A, Dwyer N, Rees M, Horsley S, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost–utility of photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Meads C, Salas C, Roberts T, Moore D, Fry-Smith A, Hyde C.
-
Evaluation of molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities.
By Grimshaw GM, Szczepura A, Hultén M, MacDonald F, Nevin NC, Sutton F, et al.
-
First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS).
By Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Walters J, Chitty L, Mackinson AM.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound locating devices for central venous access: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Calvert N, Hind D, McWilliams RG, Thomas SM, Beverley C, Davidson A.
-
A systematic review of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia.
By Bagnall A-M, Jones L, Lewis R, Ginnelly L, Glanville J, Torgerson D, et al.
-
Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study.
By Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, et al.
-
Early thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Boland A, Dundar Y, Bagust A, Haycox A, Hill R, Mujica Mota R, et al.
-
Screening for fragile X syndrome: a literature review and modelling.
By Song FJ, Barton P, Sleightholme V, Yao GL, Fry-Smith A.
-
Systematic review of endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyps.
By Dalziel K, Stein K, Round A, Garside R, Royle P.
-
Towards efficient guidelines: how to monitor guideline use in primary care.
By Hutchinson A, McIntosh A, Cox S, Gilbert C.
-
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acute hospital-based spinal cord injuries services: systematic review.
By Bagnall A-M, Jones L, Richardson G, Duffy S, Riemsma R.
-
Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies.
By Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tension-free vaginal tape for treatment of urinary stress incontinence.
By Cody J, Wyness L, Wallace S, Glazener C, Kilonzo M, Stearns S, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient education models for diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Loveman E, Cave C, Green C, Royle P, Dunn N, Waugh N.
-
The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials.
By Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, Karnon J, Tappenden P.
-
Cost–benefit evaluation of routine influenza immunisation in people 65–74 years of age.
By Allsup S, Gosney M, Haycox A, Regan M.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulsatile machine perfusion versus cold storage of kidneys for transplantation retrieved from heart-beating and non-heart-beating donors.
By Wight J, Chilcott J, Holmes M, Brewer N.
-
Can randomised trials rely on existing electronic data? A feasibility study to explore the value of routine data in health technology assessment.
By Williams JG, Cheung WY, Cohen DR, Hutchings HA, Longo MF, Russell IT.
-
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.
By Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a package comprising a patient-orientated, evidence-based self- help guidebook and patient-centred consultations on disease management and satisfaction in inflammatory bowel disease.
By Kennedy A, Nelson E, Reeves D, Richardson G, Roberts C, Robinson A, et al.
-
The effectiveness of diagnostic tests for the assessment of shoulder pain due to soft tissue disorders: a systematic review.
By Dinnes J, Loveman E, McIntyre L, Waugh N.
-
The value of digital imaging in diabetic retinopathy.
By Sharp PF, Olson J, Strachan F, Hipwell J, Ludbrook A, O’Donnell M, et al.
-
Lowering blood pressure to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke: a new preventive strategy.
By Law M, Wald N, Morris J.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ward S, Kaltenthaler E, Cowan J, Brewer N.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for early localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.
By Hummel S, Paisley S, Morgan A, Currie E, Brewer N.
-
Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system.
By Royle P, Waugh N.
-
Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B.
By Turner D, Wailoo A, Nicholson K, Cooper N, Sutton A, Abrams K.
-
A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Hickman line insertions in adult cancer patients by nurses.
By Boland A, Haycox A, Bagust A, Fitzsimmons L.
-
Redesigning postnatal care: a randomised controlled trial of protocol-based midwifery-led care focused on individual women’s physical and psychological health needs.
By MacArthur C, Winter HR, Bick DE, Lilford RJ, Lancashire RJ, Knowles H, et al.
-
Estimating implied rates of discount in healthcare decision-making.
By West RR, McNabb R, Thompson AGH, Sheldon TA, Grimley Evans J.
-
Systematic review of isolation policies in the hospital management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a review of the literature with epidemiological and economic modelling.
By Cooper BS, Stone SP, Kibbler CC, Cookson BD, Roberts JA, Medley GF, et al.
-
Treatments for spasticity and pain in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review.
By Beard S, Hunn A, Wight J.
-
The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews.
By Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP.
-
The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review.
By Bankhead CR, Brett J, Bukach C, Webster P, Stewart-Brown S, Munafo M, et al.
-
What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke?
By Wardlaw JM, Keir SL, Seymour J, Lewis S, Sandercock PAG, Dennis MS, et al.
-
Systematic review and modelling of the investigation of acute and chronic chest pain presenting in primary care.
By Mant J, McManus RJ, Oakes RAL, Delaney BC, Barton PM, Deeks JJ, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and economic modelling.
By Garside R, Stein K, Wyatt K, Round A, Price A.
-
A systematic review of the role of bisphosphonates in metastatic disease.
By Ross JR, Saunders Y, Edmonds PM, Patel S, Wonderling D, Normand C, et al.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine (Xeloda®) for locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer.
By Jones L, Hawkins N, Westwood M, Wright K, Richardson G, Riemsma R.
-
Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies.
By Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and costs of the Sugarbaker procedure for the treatment of pseudomyxoma peritonei.
By Bryant J, Clegg AJ, Sidhu MK, Brodin H, Royle P, Davidson P.
-
Psychological treatment for insomnia in the regulation of long-term hypnotic drug use.
By Morgan K, Dixon S, Mathers N, Thompson J, Tomeny M.
-
Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome.
By Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography compared with diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
By Kaltenthaler E, Bravo Vergel Y, Chilcott J, Thomas S, Blakeborough T, Walters SJ, et al.
-
The use of modelling to evaluate new drugs for patients with a chronic condition: the case of antibodies against tumour necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis.
By Barton P, Jobanputra P, Wilson J, Bryan S, Burls A.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review.
By Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Czoski-Murray C, Warren E, Chilcott J, Beverley C, Psyllaki MA, Cowan J.
-
Routine examination of the newborn: the EMREN study. Evaluation of an extension of the midwife role including a randomised controlled trial of appropriately trained midwives and paediatric senior house officers.
By Townsend J, Wolke D, Hayes J, Davé S, Rogers C, Bloomfield L, et al.
-
Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach.
By Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, et al.
-
A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery.
By Reeves BC, Angelini GD, Bryan AJ, Taylor FC, Cripps T, Spyt TJ, et al.
-
Does early magnetic resonance imaging influence management or improve outcome in patients referred to secondary care with low back pain? A pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
By Gilbert FJ, Grant AM, Gillan MGC, Vale L, Scott NW, Campbell MK, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of anakinra for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By Clark W, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Burls A.
-
A rapid and systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for treatment of mania associated with bipolar affective disorder.
By Bridle C, Palmer S, Bagnall A-M, Darba J, Duffy S, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis.
By Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N.
-
Systematic review of the long-term effects and economic consequences of treatments for obesity and implications for health improvement.
By Avenell A, Broom J, Brown TJ, Poobalan A, Aucott L, Stearns SC, et al.
-
Autoantibody testing in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus.
By Dretzke J, Cummins C, Sandercock J, Fry-Smith A, Barrett T, Burls A.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prehospital intravenous fluids in trauma patients.
By Dretzke J, Sandercock J, Bayliss S, Burls A.
-
Newer hypnotic drugs for the short-term management of insomnia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Dündar Y, Boland A, Strobl J, Dodd S, Haycox A, Bagust A, et al.
-
Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies.
By Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Dinnes J, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PMM, Kleijnen J.
-
EVALUATE hysterectomy trial: a multicentre randomised trial comparing abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic methods of hysterectomy.
By Garry R, Fountain J, Brown J, Manca A, Mason S, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models: developments on the health economics of interferon-β and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis.
By Tappenden P, Chilcott JB, Eggington S, Oakley J, McCabe C.
-
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia in chronic phase: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Price A.
-
VenUS I: a randomised controlled trial of two types of bandage for treating venous leg ulcers.
By Iglesias C, Nelson EA, Cullum NA, Torgerson DJ, on behalf of the VenUS Team.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction.
By Mowatt G, Vale L, Brazzelli M, Hernandez R, Murray A, Scott N, et al.
-
A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme.
By Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S.
-
The Social Support and Family Health Study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of two alternative forms of postnatal support for mothers living in disadvantaged inner-city areas.
By Wiggins M, Oakley A, Roberts I, Turner H, Rajan L, Austerberry H, et al.
-
Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review.
By Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant, Cuckle HS.
-
Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding: comparison of three outpatient procedures within cohorts defined by age and menopausal status.
By Critchley HOD, Warner P, Lee AJ, Brechin S, Guise J, Graham B.
-
Coronary artery stents: a rapid systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, Dickson R, Dündar Y, Haycox A, et al.
-
Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.
By Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al.
-
Rituximab (MabThera®) for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Knight C, Hind D, Brewer N, Abbott V.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and modified-release dipyridamole in the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Jones L, Griffin S, Palmer S, Main C, Orton V, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Pegylated interferon α-2a and -2b in combination with ribavirin in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Brodin H, Cave C, Waugh N, Price A, Gabbay J.
-
Clopidogrel used in combination with aspirin compared with aspirin alone in the treatment of non-ST-segment- elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Main C, Palmer S, Griffin S, Jones L, Orton V, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Provision, uptake and cost of cardiac rehabilitation programmes: improving services to under-represented groups.
By Beswick AD, Rees K, Griebsch I, Taylor FC, Burke M, West RR, et al.
-
Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials.
By Hussain-Gambles M, Leese B, Atkin K, Brown J, Mason S, Tovey P.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes.
By Colquitt JL, Green C, Sidhu MK, Hartwell D, Waugh N.
-
Identification and assessment of ongoing trials in health technology assessment reviews.
By Song FJ, Fry-Smith A, Davenport C, Bayliss S, Adi Y, Wilson JS, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic evaluation of a long-acting insulin analogue, insulin glargine
By Warren E, Weatherley-Jones E, Chilcott J, Beverley C.
-
Supplementation of a home-based exercise programme with a class-based programme for people with osteoarthritis of the knees: a randomised controlled trial and health economic analysis.
By McCarthy CJ, Mills PM, Pullen R, Richardson G, Hawkins N, Roberts CR, et al.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Green C, Colquitt JL, Kirby J, Davidson P, Payne E.
-
Acupuncture of chronic headache disorders in primary care: randomised controlled trial and economic analysis.
By Vickers AJ, Rees RW, Zollman CE, McCarney R, Smith CM, Ellis N, et al.
-
Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.
By Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al.
-
Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations.
By Wallace P, Barber J, Clayton W, Currell R, Fleming K, Garner P, et al.
-
Randomised controlled multiple treatment comparison to provide a cost-effectiveness rationale for the selection of antimicrobial therapy in acne.
By Ozolins M, Eady EA, Avery A, Cunliffe WJ, O’Neill C, Simpson NB, et al.
-
Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?
By Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L.
-
Improving the referral process for familial breast cancer genetic counselling: findings of three randomised controlled trials of two interventions.
By Wilson BJ, Torrance N, Mollison J, Wordsworth S, Gray JR, Haites NE, et al.
-
Randomised evaluation of alternative electrosurgical modalities to treat bladder outflow obstruction in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
By Fowler C, McAllister W, Plail R, Karim O, Yang Q.
-
A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of palliative therapies for patients with inoperable oesophageal cancer.
By Shenfine J, McNamee P, Steen N, Bond J, Griffin SM.
-
Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography.
By Taylor P, Champness J, Given- Wilson R, Johnston K, Potts H.
-
Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials.
By Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, et al.
-
Lay public’s understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials.
By Robinson EJ, Kerr CEP, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, et al.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy for depressive illness, schizophrenia, catatonia and mania: systematic reviews and economic modelling studies.
By Greenhalgh J, Knight C, Hind D, Beverley C, Walters S.
-
Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology.
By Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, Harwood R, Foley B, Smith P, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris®) for the treatment of severe sepsis in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Green C, Dinnes J, Takeda A, Shepherd J, Hartwell D, Cave C, et al.
-
A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
By Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P.
-
Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK.
By Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C.
-
Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation.
By McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for epilepsy in adults: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wilby J, Kainth A, Hawkins N, Epstein D, McIntosh H, McDaid C, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lofepramine.
By Peveler R, Kendrick T, Buxton M, Longworth L, Baldwin D, Moore M, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hartwell D, Colquitt J, Loveman E, Clegg AJ, Brodin H, Waugh N, et al.
-
A randomised controlled comparison of alternative strategies in stroke care.
By Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Knapp M, Swift C, Donaldson N.
-
The investigation and analysis of critical incidents and adverse events in healthcare.
By Woloshynowych M, Rogers S, Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C.
-
Potential use of routine databases in health technology assessment.
By Raftery J, Roderick P, Stevens A.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study.
By Woodroffe R, Yao GL, Meads C, Bayliss S, Ready A, Raftery J, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.
By Stevenson M, Lloyd Jones M, De Nigris E, Brewer N, Davis S, Oakley J.
-
A systematic review to examine the impact of psycho-educational interventions on health outcomes and costs in adults and children with difficult asthma.
By Smith JR, Mugford M, Holland R, Candy B, Noble MJ, Harrison BDW, et al.
-
An evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and quality of renal replacement therapy provision in renal satellite units in England and Wales.
By Roderick P, Nicholson T, Armitage A, Mehta R, Mullee M, Gerard K, et al.
-
Imatinib for the treatment of patients with unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wilson J, Connock M, Song F, Yao G, Fry-Smith A, Raftery J, et al.
-
Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.
By Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D’Amico R, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and decision-analytical modelling.
By Robinson M, Palmer S, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Bowens A, et al.
-
Outcomes of electrically stimulated gracilis neosphincter surgery.
By Tillin T, Chambers M, Feldman R.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Garside R, Stein K, Castelnuovo E, Pitt M, Ashcroft D, Dimmock P, et al.
-
Systematic review on urine albumin testing for early detection of diabetic complications.
By Newman DJ, Mattock MB, Dawnay ABS, Kerry S, McGuire A, Yaqoob M, et al.
-
Randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of water-based therapy for lower limb osteoarthritis.
By Cochrane T, Davey RC, Matthes Edwards SM.
-
Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain.
By Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Ratcliffe J, Thorpe L, Brazier J, Campbell M, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness and safety of epidural steroids in the management of sciatica.
By Price C, Arden N, Coglan L, Rogers P.
-
The British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group (BROSG) randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of aggressive versus symptomatic therapy in established rheumatoid arthritis.
By Symmons D, Tricker K, Roberts C, Davies L, Dawes P, Scott DL.
-
Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants’ and professionals’ preferences in randomised controlled trials.
By King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Bower P, Chandler M, Morou M, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review.
By Bryant J, Brodin H, Loveman E, Payne E, Clegg A.
-
A trial of problem-solving by community mental health nurses for anxiety, depression and life difficulties among general practice patients. The CPN-GP study.
By Kendrick T, Simons L, Mynors-Wallis L, Gray A, Lathlean J, Pickering R, et al.
-
The causes and effects of socio-demographic exclusions from clinical trials.
By Bartlett C, Doyal L, Ebrahim S, Davey P, Bachmann M, Egger M, et al.
-
Is hydrotherapy cost-effective? A randomised controlled trial of combined hydrotherapy programmes compared with physiotherapy land techniques in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.
By Epps H, Ginnelly L, Utley M, Southwood T, Gallivan S, Sculpher M, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study of systematic screening (targeted and total population screening) versus routine practice for the detection of atrial fibrillation in people aged 65 and over. The SAFE study.
By Hobbs FDR, Fitzmaurice DA, Mant J, Murray E, Jowett S, Bryan S, et al.
-
Displaced intracapsular hip fractures in fit, older people: a randomised comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty.
By Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF.
-
Long-term outcome of cognitive behaviour therapy clinical trials in central Scotland.
By Durham RC, Chambers JA, Power KG, Sharp DM, Macdonald RR, Major KA, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Castelnuovo E, Stein K, Pitt M, Garside R, Payne E.
-
Newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.
By Knowles R, Griebsch I, Dezateux C, Brown J, Bull C, Wren C.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Clegg AJ, Scott DA, Loveman E, Colquitt J, Hutchinson J, Royle P, et al.
-
The effectiveness of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and laser diagnostic glaucoma scanning system (GDx) in detecting and monitoring glaucoma.
By Kwartz AJ, Henson DB, Harper RA, Spencer AF, McLeod D.
-
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects in knee joints: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Clar C, Cummins E, McIntyre L, Thomas S, Lamb J, Bain L, et al.
-
Systematic review of effectiveness of different treatments for childhood retinoblastoma.
By McDaid C, Hartley S, Bagnall A-M, Ritchie G, Light K, Riemsma R.
-
Towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic reviews of mechanical methods, oral anticoagulation, dextran and regional anaesthesia as thromboprophylaxis.
By Roderick P, Ferris G, Wilson K, Halls H, Jackson D, Collins R, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parent training/education programmes for the treatment of conduct disorder, including oppositional defiant disorder, in children.
By Dretzke J, Frew E, Davenport C, Barlow J, Stewart-Brown S, Sandercock J, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease.
By Loveman E, Green C, Kirby J, Takeda A, Picot J, Payne E, et al.
-
FOOD: a multicentre randomised trial evaluating feeding policies in patients admitted to hospital with a recent stroke.
By Dennis M, Lewis S, Cranswick G, Forbes J.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: systematic reviews.
By Black C, Bagust A, Boland A, Walker S, McLeod C, De Verteuil R, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neuroimaging assessments used to visualise the seizure focus in people with refractory epilepsy being considered for surgery.
By Whiting P, Gupta R, Burch J, Mujica Mota RE, Wright K, Marson A, et al.
-
Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies.
By Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T, Haycox A, Williamson PR.
-
Systematic review and evaluation of methods of assessing urinary incontinence.
By Martin JL, Williams KS, Abrams KR, Turner DA, Sutton AJ, Chapple C, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer drugs for children with epilepsy. A systematic review.
By Connock M, Frew E, Evans B-W, Bryan S, Cummins C, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
Surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling.
By Garside R, Pitt M, Somerville M, Stein K, Price A, Gilbert N.
-
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Main C, Bojke L, Griffin S, Norman G, Barbieri M, Mather L, et al.
-
Evaluation of molecular techniques in prediction and diagnosis of cytomegalovirus disease in immunocompromised patients.
By Szczepura A, Westmoreland D, Vinogradova Y, Fox J, Clark M.
-
Screening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Thrombosis: Risk and Economic Assessment of Thrombophilia Screening (TREATS) study.
By Wu O, Robertson L, Twaddle S, Lowe GDO, Clark P, Greaves M, et al.
-
A series of systematic reviews to inform a decision analysis for sampling and treating infected diabetic foot ulcers.
By Nelson EA, O’Meara S, Craig D, Iglesias C, Golder S, Dalton J, et al.
-
Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial).
By Michaels JA, Campbell WB, Brazier JE, MacIntyre JB, Palfreyman SJ, Ratcliffe J, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care.
By Speight PM, Palmer S, Moles DR, Downer MC, Smith DH, Henriksson M, et al.
-
Measurement of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive diagnostic testing strategies for deep vein thrombosis.
By Goodacre S, Sampson F, Stevenson M, Wailoo A, Sutton A, Thomas S, et al.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HealOzone® for the treatment of occlusal pit/fissure caries and root caries.
By Brazzelli M, McKenzie L, Fielding S, Fraser C, Clarkson J, Kilonzo M, et al.
-
Randomised controlled trials of conventional antipsychotic versus new atypical drugs, and new atypical drugs versus clozapine, in people with schizophrenia responding poorly to, or intolerant of, current drug treatment.
By Lewis SW, Davies L, Jones PB, Barnes TRE, Murray RM, Kerwin R, et al.
-
Diagnostic tests and algorithms used in the investigation of haematuria: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.
By Rodgers M, Nixon J, Hempel S, Aho T, Kelly J, Neal D, et al.
-
Cognitive behavioural therapy in addition to antispasmodic therapy for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: randomised controlled trial.
By Kennedy TM, Chalder T, McCrone P, Darnley S, Knapp M, Jones RH, et al.
-
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapies for Fabry’s disease and mucopolysaccharidosis type 1.
By Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Frew E, Mans A, Dretzke J, Fry-Smith A, et al.
-
Health benefits of antiviral therapy for mild chronic hepatitis C: randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.
By Wright M, Grieve R, Roberts J, Main J, Thomas HC, on behalf of the UK Mild Hepatitis C Trial Investigators.
-
Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation.
By Nixon J, Nelson EA, Cranny G, Iglesias CP, Hawkins K, Cullum NA, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methylphenidate, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents.
By King S, Griffin S, Hodges Z, Weatherly H, Asseburg C, Richardson G, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy for Gaucher’s disease: a systematic review.
By Connock M, Burls A, Frew E, Fry-Smith A, Juarez-Garcia A, McCabe C, et al.
-
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model.
By Thomas KS, Keogh-Brown MR, Chalmers JR, Fordham RJ, Holland RC, Armstrong SJ, et al.
-
A systematic literature review of the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent wandering in dementia and evaluation of the ethical implications and acceptability of their use.
By Robinson L, Hutchings D, Corner L, Beyer F, Dickinson H, Vanoli A, et al.
-
A review of the evidence on the effects and costs of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in different patient groups, and modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost–utility for these groups in a UK context.
By Buxton M, Caine N, Chase D, Connelly D, Grace A, Jackson C, et al.
-
Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Jones J, Takeda A, Davidson P, Price A.
-
An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in patient management in intensive care: a systematic review and a randomised controlled trial.
By Harvey S, Stevens K, Harrison D, Young D, Brampton W, McCabe C, et al.
-
Accurate, practical and cost-effective assessment of carotid stenosis in the UK.
By Wardlaw JM, Chappell FM, Stevenson M, De Nigris E, Thomas S, Gillard J, et al.
-
Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Woolacott N, Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Misso K, et al.
-
The cost-effectiveness of testing for hepatitis C in former injecting drug users.
By Castelnuovo E, Thompson-Coon J, Pitt M, Cramp M, Siebert U, Price A, et al.
-
Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and anxiety update: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Kaltenthaler E, Brazier J, De Nigris E, Tumur I, Ferriter M, Beverley C, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.
By Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, et al.
-
Psychological therapies including dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: a systematic review and preliminary economic evaluation.
By Brazier J, Tumur I, Holmes M, Ferriter M, Parry G, Dent-Brown K, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model.
By Whiting P, Westwood M, Bojke L, Palmer S, Richardson G, Cooper J, et al.
-
Cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomised controlled trial of an outpatient group programme.
By O’Dowd H, Gladwell P, Rogers CA, Hollinghurst S, Gregory A.
-
A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five strategies for the prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review with economic modelling.
By Brown TJ, Hooper L, Elliott RA, Payne K, Webb R, Roberts C, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for coronary artery disease: systematic review.
By Waugh N, Black C, Walker S, McIntyre L, Cummins E, Hillis G.
-
What are the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of endoscopy undertaken by nurses when compared with doctors? A Multi-Institution Nurse Endoscopy Trial (MINuET).
By Williams J, Russell I, Durai D, Cheung W-Y, Farrin A, Bloor K, et al.
-
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Pandor A, Eggington S, Paisley S, Tappenden P, Sutcliffe P.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness.
By Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Jowett S, Bryan S, Clark W, et al.
-
Telemedicine in dermatology: a randomised controlled trial.
By Bowns IR, Collins K, Walters SJ, McDonagh AJG.
-
Cost-effectiveness of cell salvage and alternative methods of minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion: a systematic review and economic model.
By Davies L, Brown TJ, Haynes S, Payne K, Elliott RA, McCollum C.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.
By Murray A, Lourenco T, de Verteuil R, Hernandez R, Fraser C, McKinley A, et al.
-
Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review.
By Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Bravo Vergel Y, et al.
-
Systematic reviews of clinical decision tools for acute abdominal pain.
By Liu JLY, Wyatt JC, Deeks JJ, Clamp S, Keen J, Verde P, et al.
-
Evaluation of the ventricular assist device programme in the UK.
By Sharples L, Buxton M, Caine N, Cafferty F, Demiris N, Dyer M, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplantation in children.
By Yao G, Albon E, Adi Y, Milford D, Bayliss S, Ready A, et al.
-
Amniocentesis results: investigation of anxiety. The ARIA trial.
By Hewison J, Nixon J, Fountain J, Cocks K, Jones C, Mason G, et al.
-
Pemetrexed disodium for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Dundar Y, Bagust A, Dickson R, Dodd S, Green J, Haycox A, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.
By Collins R, Fenwick E, Trowman R, Perard R, Norman G, Light K, et al.
-
A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection.
By Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kunst H, Gibson A, Cummins E, Waugh N, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women.
By Stevenson M, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M, Beverley C.
-
A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines.
By Raynor DK, Blenkinsopp A, Knapp P, Grime J, Nicolson DJ, Pollock K, et al.
-
Oral naltrexone as a treatment for relapse prevention in formerly opioid-dependent drug users: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Adi Y, Juarez-Garcia A, Wang D, Jowett S, Frew E, Day E, et al.
-
Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost–utility analysis.
By Kanis JA, Stevenson M, McCloskey EV, Davis S, Lloyd-Jones M.
-
Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection.
By Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al.
-
Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Connock M, Juarez-Garcia A, Jowett S, Frew E, Liu Z, Taylor RJ, et al.
-
Exercise Evaluation Randomised Trial (EXERT): a randomised trial comparing GP referral for leisure centre-based exercise, community-based walking and advice only.
By Isaacs AJ, Critchley JA, See Tai S, Buckingham K, Westley D, Harridge SDR, et al.
-
Interferon alfa (pegylated and non-pegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Jones J, Hartwell D, Davidson P, Price A, Waugh N.
-
Systematic review and economic evaluation of bevacizumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.
By Tappenden P, Jones R, Paisley S, Carroll C.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of epoetin alfa, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment.
By Wilson J, Yao GL, Raftery J, Bohlius J, Brunskill S, Sandercock J, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events.
By Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, Holmes M, Ara R, Ryan A, et al.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of community-based respite care for frail older people and their carers.
By Mason A, Weatherly H, Spilsbury K, Arksey H, Golder S, Adamson J, et al.
-
Additional therapy for young children with spastic cerebral palsy: a randomised controlled trial.
By Weindling AM, Cunningham CC, Glenn SM, Edwards RT, Reeves DJ.
-
Screening for type 2 diabetes: literature review and economic modelling.
By Waugh N, Scotland G, McNamee P, Gillett M, Brennan A, Goyder E, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet for secondary hyperparathyroidism in end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Mealing S, Roome C, Snaith A, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Takeda AL, Jones J, Loveman E, Tan SC, Clegg AJ.
-
A systematic review of duplex ultrasound, magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease.
By Collins R, Cranny G, Burch J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Craig D, Wright K, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review.
By Colquitt JL, Kirby J, Green C, Cooper K, Trompeter RS.
-
A systematic review of the routine monitoring of growth in children of primary school age to identify growth-related conditions.
By Fayter D, Nixon J, Hartley S, Rithalia A, Butler G, Rudolf M, et al.
-
Systematic review of the effectiveness of preventing and treating Staphylococcus aureus carriage in reducing peritoneal catheter-related infections.
By McCormack K, Rabindranath K, Kilonzo M, Vale L, Fraser C, McIntyre L, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy in severe depression: a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic analysis.
By McLoughlin DM, Mogg A, Eranti S, Pluck G, Purvis R, Edwards D, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of speech and language therapy for children with primary language impairment.
By Boyle J, McCartney E, Forbes J, O’Hare A.
-
Hormonal therapies for early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hind D, Ward S, De Nigris E, Simpson E, Carroll C, Wyld L.
-
Cardioprotection against the toxic effects of anthracyclines given to children with cancer: a systematic review.
By Bryant J, Picot J, Levitt G, Sullivan I, Baxter L, Clegg A.
-
Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Dagenais P, Dickson R, Dundar Y, et al.
-
Prenatal screening and treatment strategies to prevent group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: cost-effectiveness and expected value of information analyses.
By Colbourn T, Asseburg C, Bojke L, Philips Z, Claxton K, Ades AE, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bone morphogenetic proteins in the non-healing of fractures and spinal fusion: a systematic review.
By Garrison KR, Donell S, Ryder J, Shemilt I, Mugford M, Harvey I, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial of postoperative radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery in a minimum-risk older population. The PRIME trial.
By Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, Williams LJ, King CC, Jack W, van der Pol M, et al.
-
Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen.
By Bamford J, Fortnum H, Bristow K, Smith J, Vamvakas G, Davies L, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaled insulin in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Black C, Cummins E, Royle P, Philip S, Waugh N.
-
Surveillance of cirrhosis for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and economic analysis.
By Thompson Coon J, Rogers G, Hewson P, Wright D, Anderson R, Cramp M, et al.
-
The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation Study (BRUM). Homebased compared with hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation in a multi-ethnic population: cost-effectiveness and patient adherence.
By Jolly K, Taylor R, Lip GYH, Greenfield S, Raftery J, Mant J, et al.
-
A systematic review of the clinical, public health and cost-effectiveness of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection and identification of bacterial intestinal pathogens in faeces and food.
By Abubakar I, Irvine L, Aldus CF, Wyatt GM, Fordham R, Schelenz S, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial examining the longer-term outcomes of standard versus new antiepileptic drugs. The SANAD trial.
By Marson AG, Appleton R, Baker GA, Chadwick DW, Doughty J, Eaton B, et al.
-
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of managing long-term oral anti-coagulation therapy: a systematic review and economic modelling.
By Connock M, Stevens C, Fry-Smith A, Jowett S, Fitzmaurice D, Moore D, et al.
-
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for preventing relapse in people with bipolar disorder.
By Soares-Weiser K, Bravo Vergel Y, Beynon S, Dunn G, Barbieri M, Duffy S, et al.
-
Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ward S, Simpson E, Davis S, Hind D, Rees A, Wilkinson A.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Burr JM, Mowatt G, Hernández R, Siddiqui MAR, Cook J, Lourenco T, et al.
-
Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models.
By Davis A, Smith P, Ferguson M, Stephens D, Gianopoulos I.
-
Contamination in trials of educational interventions.
By Keogh-Brown MR, Bachmann MO, Shepstone L, Hewitt C, Howe A, Ramsay CR, et al.
-
Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers.
By Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, Payne E.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Garside R, Pitt M, Anderson R, Rogers G, Dyer M, Mealing S, et al.
-
Drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hill RA, Boland A, Dickson R, Dündar Y, Haycox A, McLeod C, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation (biventricular pacing) for heart failure: systematic review and economic model.
By Fox M, Mealing S, Anderson R, Dean J, Stein K, Price A, et al.
-
Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrolment and participation study. The STEPS study.
By Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, et al.
-
Cost-effectiveness of functional cardiac testing in the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease: a randomised controlled trial. The CECaT trial.
By Sharples L, Hughes V, Crean A, Dyer M, Buxton M, Goldsmith K, et al.
-
Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods.
By Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Coomarasamy A, Khan KS, Bossuyt PMM.
-
Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
By Leontiadis GI, Sreedharan A, Dorward S, Barton P, Delaney B, Howden CW, et al.
-
A review and critique of modelling in prioritising and designing screening programmes.
By Karnon J, Goyder E, Tappenden P, McPhie S, Towers I, Brazier J, et al.
-
An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme.
By Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J.
-
A systematic review and economic model of switching from nonglycopeptide to glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery.
By Cranny G, Elliott R, Weatherly H, Chambers D, Hawkins N, Myers L, et al.
-
‘Cut down to quit’ with nicotine replacement therapies in smoking cessation: a systematic review of effectiveness and economic analysis.
By Wang D, Connock M, Barton P, Fry-Smith A, Aveyard P, Moore D.
-
A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies for reducing fracture risk in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis with additional data on long-term risk of fracture and cost of disease management.
By Thornton J, Ashcroft D, O’Neill T, Elliott R, Adams J, Roberts C, et al.
-
Does befriending by trained lay workers improve psychological well-being and quality of life for carers of people with dementia, and at what cost? A randomised controlled trial.
By Charlesworth G, Shepstone L, Wilson E, Thalanany M, Mugford M, Poland F.
-
A multi-centre retrospective cohort study comparing the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy and uterine artery embolisation for the treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. The HOPEFUL study.
By Hirst A, Dutton S, Wu O, Briggs A, Edwards C, Waldenmaier L, et al.
-
Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling.
By Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L, et al.
-
The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation.
By Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S.
-
Stapled haemorrhoidectomy (haemorrhoidopexy) for the treatment of haemorrhoids: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Burch J, Epstein D, Baba-Akbari A, Weatherly H, Fox D, Golder S, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness of diabetes education models for Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.
By Loveman E, Frampton GK, Clegg AJ.
-
Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: systematic review and qualitative study.
By Raftery J, Bryant J, Powell J, Kerr C, Hawker S.
-
Cyclooxygenase-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (etodolac, meloxicam, celecoxib, rofecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib and lumiracoxib) for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Fry-Smith A, Harris G, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing bloodstream infections: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hockenhull JC, Dwan K, Boland A, Smith G, Bagust A, Dundar Y, et al.
-
Stepped treatment of older adults on laxatives. The STOOL trial.
By Mihaylov S, Stark C, McColl E, Steen N, Vanoli A, Rubin G, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy in adolescents with major depression treated by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The ADAPT trial.
By Goodyer IM, Dubicka B, Wilkinson P, Kelvin R, Roberts C, Byford S, et al.
-
The use of irinotecan, oxaliplatin and raltitrexed for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Hind D, Tappenden P, Tumur I, Eggington E, Sutcliffe P, Ryan A.
-
Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Colquitt JL, Jones J, Tan SC, Takeda A, Clegg AJ, Price A.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 64-slice or higher computed tomography angiography as an alternative to invasive coronary angiography in the investigation of coronary artery disease.
By Mowatt G, Cummins E, Waugh N, Walker S, Cook J, Jia X, et al.
-
Structural neuroimaging in psychosis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Albon E, Tsourapas A, Frew E, Davenport C, Oyebode F, Bayliss S, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over.
By Shepherd J, Rogers G, Anderson R, Main C, Thompson-Coon J, Hartwell D, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in children under the age of 12 years.
By Main C, Shepherd J, Anderson R, Rogers G, Thompson-Coon J, Liu Z, et al.
-
Ezetimibe for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Ara R, Tumur I, Pandor A, Duenas A, Williams R, Wilkinson A, et al.
-
Topical or oral ibuprofen for chronic knee pain in older people. The TOIB study.
By Underwood M, Ashby D, Carnes D, Castelnuovo E, Cross P, Harding G, et al.
-
A prospective randomised comparison of minor surgery in primary and secondary care. The MiSTIC trial.
By George S, Pockney P, Primrose J, Smith H, Little P, Kinley H, et al.
-
A review and critical appraisal of measures of therapist–patient interactions in mental health settings.
By Cahill J, Barkham M, Hardy G, Gilbody S, Richards D, Bower P, et al.
-
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4–5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Carlton J, Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith KJ, Marr J.
-
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and economic modelling of minimal incision total hip replacement approaches in the management of arthritic disease of the hip.
By de Verteuil R, Imamura M, Zhu S, Glazener C, Fraser C, Munro N, et al.
-
A preliminary model-based assessment of the cost–utility of a screening programme for early age-related macular degeneration.
By Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith K, Brand C, Chakravarthy U, Davis S, et al.
-
Intravenous magnesium sulphate and sotalol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Shepherd J, Jones J, Frampton GK, Tanajewski L, Turner D, Price A.
-
Absorbent products for urinary/faecal incontinence: a comparative evaluation of key product categories.
By Fader M, Cottenden A, Getliffe K, Gage H, Clarke-O’Neill S, Jamieson K, et al.
-
A systematic review of repetitive functional task practice with modelling of resource use, costs and effectiveness.
By French B, Leathley M, Sutton C, McAdam J, Thomas L, Forster A, et al.
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectivness of minimal access surgery amongst people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease – a UK collaborative study. The reflux trial.
By Grant A, Wileman S, Ramsay C, Bojke L, Epstein D, Sculpher M, et al.
-
Time to full publication of studies of anti-cancer medicines for breast cancer and the potential for publication bias: a short systematic review.
By Takeda A, Loveman E, Harris P, Hartwell D, Welch K.
-
Performance of screening tests for child physical abuse in accident and emergency departments.
By Woodman J, Pitt M, Wentz R, Taylor B, Hodes D, Gilbert RE.
-
Curative catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation and typical atrial flutter: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Rodgers M, McKenna C, Palmer S, Chambers D, Van Hout S, Golder S, et al.
-
Systematic review and economic modelling of effectiveness and cost utility of surgical treatments for men with benign prostatic enlargement.
By Lourenco T, Armstrong N, N’Dow J, Nabi G, Deverill M, Pickard R, et al.
-
Immunoprophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) with palivizumab in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Wang D, Cummins C, Bayliss S, Sandercock J, Burls A.
-
Deferasirox for the treatment of iron overload associated with regular blood transfusions (transfusional haemosiderosis) in patients suffering with chronic anaemia: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By McLeod C, Fleeman N, Kirkham J, Bagust A, Boland A, Chu P, et al.
-
Thrombophilia testing in people with venous thromboembolism: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.
By Simpson EL, Stevenson MD, Rawdin A, Papaioannou D.
-
Surgical procedures and non-surgical devices for the management of non-apnoeic snoring: a systematic review of clinical effects and associated treatment costs.
By Main C, Liu Z, Welch K, Weiner G, Quentin Jones S, Stein K.
-
Continuous positive airway pressure devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea syndrome: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By McDaid C, Griffin S, Weatherly H, Durée K, van der Burgt M, van Hout S, Akers J, et al.
-
Use of classical and novel biomarkers as prognostic risk factors for localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.
By Sutcliffe P, Hummel S, Simpson E, Young T, Rees A, Wilkinson A, et al.
-
The harmful health effects of recreational ecstasy: a systematic review of observational evidence.
By Rogers G, Elston J, Garside R, Roome C, Taylor R, Younger P, et al.
-
Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients.
By Mowatt G, Houston G, Hernández R, de Verteuil R, Fraser C, Cuthbertson B, et al.
-
The use of surrogate outcomes in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses: a survey of UK Health Technology Assessment reports.
By Taylor RS, Elston J.
-
Controlling Hypertension and Hypotension Immediately Post Stroke (CHHIPS) – a randomised controlled trial.
By Potter J, Mistri A, Brodie F, Chernova J, Wilson E, Jagger C, et al.
-
Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis for RhD-negative women: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Pilgrim H, Lloyd-Jones M, Rees A.
-
Amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir for the prophylaxis of influenza (including a review of existing guidance no. 67): a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Tappenden P, Jackson R, Cooper K, Rees A, Simpson E, Read R, et al.
-
Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods.
By Hobart J, Cano S.
-
Treatment of severe ankle sprain: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three types of mechanical ankle support with tubular bandage. The CAST trial.
By Cooke MW, Marsh JL, Clark M, Nakash R, Jarvis RM, Hutton JL, et al. , on behalf of the CAST trial group.
-
Non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis for HIV: a systematic review.
By Bryant J, Baxter L, Hird S.
-
Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.
By Farmer AJ, Wade AN, French DP, Simon J, Yudkin P, Gray A, et al.
-
How far does screening women for domestic (partner) violence in different health-care settings meet criteria for a screening programme? Systematic reviews of nine UK National Screening Committee criteria.
By Feder G, Ramsay J, Dunne D, Rose M, Arsene C, Norman R, et al.
-
Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Simpson, EL, Duenas A, Holmes MW, Papaioannou D, Chilcott J.
-
The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of suspected acoustic neuroma: a systematic review of clinical and costeffectiveness and natural history.
By Fortnum H, O’Neill C, Taylor R, Lenthall R, Nikolopoulos T, Lightfoot G, et al.
-
Dipsticks and diagnostic algorithms in urinary tract infection: development and validation, randomised trial, economic analysis, observational cohort and qualitative study.
By Little P, Turner S, Rumsby K, Warner G, Moore M, Lowes JA, et al.
-
Systematic review of respite care in the frail elderly.
By Shaw C, McNamara R, Abrams K, Cannings-John R, Hood K, Longo M, et al.
-
Neuroleptics in the treatment of aggressive challenging behaviour for people with intellectual disabilities: a randomised controlled trial (NACHBID).
By Tyrer P, Oliver-Africano P, Romeo R, Knapp M, Dickens S, Bouras N, et al.
-
Randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression with somatic symptoms in primary care: the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressant response) study.
By Kendrick T, Chatwin J, Dowrick C, Tylee A, Morriss R, Peveler R, et al.
-
Diagnostic strategies using DNA testing for hereditary haemochromatosis in at-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
By Bryant J, Cooper K, Picot J, Clegg A, Roderick P, Rosenberg W, et al.
-
Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis.
By McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Hawkins N, Claxton K, Light K, et al.
-
Development of a decision support tool for primary care management of patients with abnormal liver function tests without clinically apparent liver disease: a record-linkage population cohort study and decision analysis (ALFIE).
By Donnan PT, McLernon D, Dillon JF, Ryder S, Roderick P, Sullivan F, et al.
-
A systematic review of presumed consent systems for deceased organ donation.
By Rithalia A, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Norman G, Myers L, Sowden A.
-
Paracetamol and ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children: the PITCH randomised controlled trial.
By Hay AD, Redmond NM, Costelloe C, Montgomery AA, Fletcher M, Hollinghurst S, et al.
-
A randomised controlled trial to compare minimally invasive glucose monitoring devices with conventional monitoring in the management of insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (MITRE).
By Newman SP, Cooke D, Casbard A, Walker S, Meredith S, Nunn A, et al.
-
Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making.
By Andronis L, Barton P, Bryan S.
-
Trastuzumab for the treatment of primary breast cancer in HER2-positive women: a single technology appraisal.
By Ward S, Pilgrim H, Hind D.
-
Docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer: a single technology appraisal.
By Chilcott J, Lloyd Jones M, Wilkinson A.
-
The use of paclitaxel in the management of early stage breast cancer.
By Griffin S, Dunn G, Palmer S, Macfarlane K, Brent S, Dyker A, et al.
-
Rituximab for the first-line treatment of stage III/IV follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
By Dundar Y, Bagust A, Hounsome J, McLeod C, Boland A, Davis H, et al.
-
Bortezomib for the treatment of multiple myeloma patients.
By Green C, Bryant J, Takeda A, Cooper K, Clegg A, Smith A, et al.
-
Fludarabine phosphate for the firstline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.
By Walker S, Palmer S, Erhorn S, Brent S, Dyker A, Ferrie L, et al.
-
Erlotinib for the treatment of relapsed non-small cell lung cancer.
By McLeod C, Bagust A, Boland A, Hockenhull J, Dundar Y, Proudlove C, et al.
-
Cetuximab plus radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.
By Griffin S, Walker S, Sculpher M, White S, Erhorn S, Brent S, et al.
-
Infliximab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis.
By Loveman E, Turner D, Hartwell D, Cooper K, Clegg A
-
Psychological interventions for postnatal depression: cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation. The PoNDER trial.
By Morrell CJ, Warner R, Slade P, Dixon S, Walters S, Paley G, et al.
-
The effect of different treatment durations of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and value of information analysis.
By Rogowski R, Burch J, Palmer S, Craigs C, Golder S, Woolacott N.
-
Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnosis of heart failure, with modelling of implications of different diagnostic strategies in primary care.
By Mant J, Doust J, Roalfe A, Barton P, Cowie MR, Glasziou P, et al.
Health Technology Assessment programme
-
Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Director, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield
Prioritisation Strategy Group
-
Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Director, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield
-
Dr Bob Coates, Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Andrew Cook, Consultant Advisor, NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Peter Davidson, Director of Science Support, NETSCC, HTA
-
Professor Robin E Ferner, Consultant Physician and Director, West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions, City Hospital NHS Trust, Birmingham
-
Professor Paul Glasziou, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
-
Dr Nick Hicks, Director of NHS Support, NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Edmund Jessop, Medical Adviser, National Specialist, National Commissioning Group (NCG), Department of Health, London
-
Ms Lynn Kerridge, Chief Executive Officer, NETSCC and NETSCC, HTA
-
Dr Ruairidh Milne, Director of Strategy and Development, NETSCC
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Ms Pamela Young, Specialist Programme Manager, NETSCC, HTA
HTA Commissioning Board
-
Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Director, Medical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield
-
Senior Lecturer in General Practice, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford
-
Professor Ann Ashburn, Professor of Rehabilitation and Head of Research, Southampton General Hospital
-
Professor Deborah Ashby, Professor of Medical Statistics, Queen Mary, University of London
-
Professor John Cairns, Professor of Health Economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
-
Professor Peter Croft, Director of Primary Care Sciences Research Centre, Keele University
-
Professor Nicky Cullum, Director of Centre for Evidence-Based Nursing, University of York
-
Professor Jenny Donovan, Professor of Social Medicine, University of Bristol
-
Professor Steve Halligan, Professor of Gastrointestinal Radiology, University College Hospital, London
-
Professor Freddie Hamdy, Professor of Urology, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Allan House, Professor of Liaison Psychiatry, University of Leeds
-
Dr Martin J Landray, Reader in Epidemiology, Honorary Consultant Physician, Clinical Trial Service Unit, University of Oxford?
-
Professor Stuart Logan, Director of Health & Social Care Research, The Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth
-
Dr Rafael Perera, Lecturer in Medical Statisitics, Department of Primary Health Care, Univeristy of Oxford
-
Professor Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology & Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
-
Professor Mark Sculpher, Professor of Health Economics, University of York
-
Professor Helen Smith, Professor of Primary Care, University of Brighton
-
Professor Kate Thomas, Professor of Complementary & Alternative Medicine Research, University of Leeds
-
Professor David John Torgerson, Director of York Trials Unit, University of York
-
Professor Hywel Williams, Professor of Dermato-Epidemiology, University of Nottingham
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Dr Morven Roberts, Clinical Trials Manager, Medical Research Council
Diagnostic Technologies & Screening Panel
-
Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford
-
Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London
-
Professor Judith E Adams, Consultant Radiologist, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Central Manchester & Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust, and Professor of Diagnostic Radiology, Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, Cancer & Imaging Sciences, University of Manchester
-
Ms Jane Bates, Consultant Ultrasound Practitioner, Ultrasound Department, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
-
Dr Stephanie Dancer, Consultant Microbiologist, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride
-
Professor Glyn Elwyn, Primary Medical Care Research Group, Swansea Clinical School, University of Wales
-
Dr Ron Gray, Consultant Clinical Epidemiologist, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford
-
Professor Paul D Griffiths, Professor of Radiology, University of Sheffield
-
Dr Jennifer J Kurinczuk, Consultant Clinical Epidemiologist, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford
-
Dr Susanne M Ludgate, Medical Director, Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London
-
Dr Anne Mackie, Director of Programmes, UK National Screening Committee
-
Dr Michael Millar, Consultant Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Barts and The London NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital
-
Mr Stephen Pilling, Director, Centre for Outcomes, Research & Effectiveness, Joint Director, National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, University College London
-
Mrs Una Rennard, Service User Representative
-
Dr Phil Shackley, Senior Lecturer in Health Economics, School of Population and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Dr W Stuart A Smellie, Consultant in Chemical Pathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital
-
Dr Nicholas Summerton, Consultant Clinical and Public Health Advisor, NICE
-
Ms Dawn Talbot, Service User Representative
-
Dr Graham Taylor, Scientific Advisor, Regional DNA Laboratory, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds
-
Professor Lindsay Wilson Turnbull, Scientific Director of the Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations and YCR Professor of Radiology, Hull Royal Infirmary
-
Dr Tim Elliott, Team Leader, Cancer Screening, Department of Health
-
Dr Catherine Moody, Programme Manager, Neuroscience and Mental Health Board
-
Dr Ursula Wells, Principal Research Officer, Department of Health
Pharmaceuticals Panel
-
Consultant Physician and Director, West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reactions, City Hospital NHS Trust, Birmingham
-
Professor in Child Health, University of Nottingham
-
Mrs Nicola Carey, Senior Research Fellow, School of Health and Social Care, The University of Reading
-
Mr John Chapman, Service User Representative
-
Dr Peter Elton, Director of Public Health, Bury Primary Care Trust
-
Dr Ben Goldacre, Research Fellow, Division of Psychological Medicine and Psychiatry, King’s College London
-
Mrs Barbara Greggains, Service User Representative
-
Dr Bill Gutteridge, Medical Adviser, London Strategic Health Authority
-
Dr Dyfrig Hughes, Reader in Pharmacoeconomics and Deputy Director, Centre for Economics and Policy in Health, IMSCaR, Bangor University
-
Professor Jonathan Ledermann, Professor of Medical Oncology and Director of the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre
-
Dr Yoon K Loke, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacology, University of East Anglia
-
Professor Femi Oyebode, Consultant Psychiatrist and Head of Department, University of Birmingham
-
Dr Andrew Prentice, Senior Lecturer and Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, The Rosie Hospital, University of Cambridge
-
Dr Martin Shelly, General Practitioner, Leeds, and Associate Director, NHS Clinical Governance Support Team, Leicester
-
Dr Gillian Shepherd, Director, Health and Clinical Excellence, Merck Serono Ltd
-
Mrs Katrina Simister, Assistant Director New Medicines, National Prescribing Centre, Liverpool
-
Mr David Symes, Service User Representative
-
Dr Lesley Wise, Unit Manager, Pharmacoepidemiology Research Unit, VRMM, Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Mr Simon Reeve, Head of Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness, Medicines, Pharmacy and Industry Group, Department of Health
-
Dr Heike Weber, Programme Manager, Medical Research Council
-
Dr Ursula Wells, Principal Research Officer, Department of Health
Therapeutic Procedures Panel
-
Consultant Physician, North Bristol NHS Trust
-
Professor of Psychiatry, Division of Health in the Community, University of Warwick, Coventry
-
Professor Jane Barlow, Professor of Public Health in the Early Years, Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, Coventry
-
Ms Maree Barnett, Acting Branch Head of Vascular Programme, Department of Health
-
Mrs Val Carlill, Service User Representative
-
Mrs Anthea De Barton-Watson, Service User Representative
-
Mr Mark Emberton, Senior Lecturer in Oncological Urology, Institute of Urology, University College Hospital, London
-
Professor Steve Goodacre, Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Christopher Griffiths, Professor of Primary Care, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
-
Mr Paul Hilton, Consultant Gynaecologist and Urogynaecologist, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Nicholas James, Professor of Clinical Oncology, University of Birmingham, and Consultant in Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital
-
Dr Peter Martin, Consultant Neurologist, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge
-
Dr Kate Radford, Senior Lecturer (Research), Clinical Practice Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston
-
Mr Jim Reece Service User Representative
-
Dr Karen Roberts, Nurse Consultant, Dunston Hill Hospital Cottages
-
Dr Phillip Leech, Principal Medical Officer for Primary Care, Department of Health
-
Ms Kay Pattison, Section Head, NHS R&D Programme, Department of Health
-
Dr Morven Roberts, Clinical Trials Manager, Medical Research Council
-
Professor Tom Walley, Director, NIHR HTA programme, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool
-
Dr Ursula Wells, Principal Research Officer, Department of Health
Disease Prevention Panel
-
Medical Adviser, National Specialist, National Commissioning Group (NCG), London
-
Director, NHS Sustainable Development Unit, Cambridge
-
Dr Elizabeth Fellow-Smith, Medical Director, West London Mental Health Trust, Middlesex
-
Dr John Jackson, General Practitioner, Parkway Medical Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Mike Kelly, Director, Centre for Public Health Excellence, NICE, London
-
Dr Chris McCall, General Practitioner, The Hadleigh Practice, Corfe Mullen, Dorset
-
Ms Jeanett Martin, Director of Nursing, BarnDoc Limited, Lewisham Primary Care Trust
-
Dr Julie Mytton, Locum Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Bristol Primary Care Trust
-
Miss Nicky Mullany, Service User Representative
-
Professor Ian Roberts, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
-
Professor Ken Stein, Senior Clinical Lecturer in Public Health, University of Exeter
-
Dr Kieran Sweeney, Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth
-
Professor Carol Tannahill, Glasgow Centre for Population Health
-
Professor Margaret Thorogood, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry
-
Ms Christine McGuire, Research & Development, Department of Health
-
Dr Caroline Stone, Programme Manager, Medical Research Council
Expert Advisory Network
-
Professor Douglas Altman, Professor of Statistics in Medicine, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford
-
Professor John Bond, Professor of Social Gerontology & Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Andrew Bradbury, Professor of Vascular Surgery, Solihull Hospital, Birmingham
-
Mr Shaun Brogan, Chief Executive, Ridgeway Primary Care Group, Aylesbury
-
Mrs Stella Burnside OBE, Chief Executive, Regulation and Improvement Authority, Belfast
-
Ms Tracy Bury, Project Manager, World Confederation for Physical Therapy, London
-
Professor Iain T Cameron, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Head of the School of Medicine, University of Southampton
-
Dr Christine Clark, Medical Writer and Consultant Pharmacist, Rossendale
-
Professor Collette Clifford, Professor of Nursing and Head of Research, The Medical School, University of Birmingham
-
Professor Barry Cookson, Director, Laboratory of Hospital Infection, Public Health Laboratory Service, London
-
Dr Carl Counsell, Clinical Senior Lecturer in Neurology, University of Aberdeen
-
Professor Howard Cuckle, Professor of Reproductive Epidemiology, Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Leeds
-
Dr Katherine Darton, Information Unit, MIND – The Mental Health Charity, London
-
Professor Carol Dezateux, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology, Institute of Child Health, London
-
Mr John Dunning, Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge
-
Mr Jonothan Earnshaw, Consultant Vascular Surgeon, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester
-
Professor Martin Eccles, Professor of Clinical Effectiveness, Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Professor Pam Enderby, Dean of Faculty of Medicine, Institute of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Gene Feder, Professor of Primary Care Research & Development, Centre for Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
-
Mr Leonard R Fenwick, Chief Executive, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne
-
Mrs Gillian Fletcher, Antenatal Teacher and Tutor and President, National Childbirth Trust, Henfield
-
Professor Jayne Franklyn, Professor of Medicine, University of Birmingham
-
Mr Tam Fry, Honorary Chairman, Child Growth Foundation, London
-
Professor Fiona Gilbert, Consultant Radiologist and NCRN Member, University of Aberdeen
-
Professor Paul Gregg, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgical Science, South Tees Hospital NHS Trust
-
Bec Hanley, Co-director, TwoCan Associates, West Sussex
-
Dr Maryann L Hardy, Senior Lecturer, University of Bradford
-
Mrs Sharon Hart, Healthcare Management Consultant, Reading
-
Professor Robert E Hawkins, CRC Professor and Director of Medical Oncology, Christie CRC Research Centre, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester
-
Professor Richard Hobbs, Head of Department of Primary Care & General Practice, University of Birmingham
-
Professor Alan Horwich, Dean and Section Chairman, The Institute of Cancer Research, London
-
Professor Allen Hutchinson, Director of Public Health and Deputy Dean of ScHARR, University of Sheffield
-
Professor Peter Jones, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
-
Professor Stan Kaye, Cancer Research UK Professor of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, Surrey
-
Dr Duncan Keeley, General Practitioner (Dr Burch & Ptnrs), The Health Centre, Thame
-
Dr Donna Lamping, Research Degrees Programme Director and Reader in Psychology, Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London
-
Mr George Levvy, Chief Executive, Motor Neurone Disease Association, Northampton
-
Professor James Lindesay, Professor of Psychiatry for the Elderly, University of Leicester
-
Professor Julian Little, Professor of Human Genome Epidemiology, University of Ottawa
-
Professor Alistaire McGuire, Professor of Health Economics, London School of Economics
-
Professor Rajan Madhok, Medical Director and Director of Public Health, Directorate of Clinical Strategy & Public Health, North & East Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire Health Authority, York
-
Professor Alexander Markham, Director, Molecular Medicine Unit, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds
-
Dr Peter Moore, Freelance Science Writer, Ashtead
-
Dr Andrew Mortimore, Public Health Director, Southampton City Primary Care Trust
-
Dr Sue Moss, Associate Director, Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton
-
Professor Miranda Mugford, Professor of Health Economics and Group Co-ordinator, University of East Anglia
-
Professor Jim Neilson, Head of School of Reproductive & Developmental Medicine and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Liverpool
-
Mrs Julietta Patnick, National Co-ordinator, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield
-
Professor Robert Peveler, Professor of Liaison Psychiatry, Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton
-
Professor Chris Price, Director of Clinical Research, Bayer Diagnostics Europe, Stoke Poges
-
Professor William Rosenberg, Professor of Hepatology and Consultant Physician, University of Southampton
-
Professor Peter Sandercock, Professor of Medical Neurology, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh
-
Dr Susan Schonfield, Consultant in Public Health, Hillingdon Primary Care Trust, Middlesex
-
Dr Eamonn Sheridan, Consultant in Clinical Genetics, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds
-
Dr Margaret Somerville, Director of Public Health Learning, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth
-
Professor Sarah Stewart-Brown, Professor of Public Health, Division of Health in the Community, University of Warwick, Coventry
-
Professor Ala Szczepura, Professor of Health Service Research, Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry
-
Mrs Joan Webster, Consumer Member, Southern Derbyshire Community Health Council
-
Professor Martin Whittle, Clinical Co-director, National Co-ordinating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health, Lymington