AIMS: (1) Update United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (UKPDS-OM2) risk factor time path equations; (2) compare quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using original and updated equations; and (3) compare QALY gains for reference case simulations using different risk factor equations.
METHODS: Using pooled contemporary data from two randomised trials EXSCEL and TECOS (n = 28,608), we estimated: dynamic panel models of seven continuous risk factors (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, HbA1c, haemoglobin, heart rate, blood pressure and body mass index); two-step models of estimated glomerular filtration rate; and survival analyses of peripheral arterial disease, atrial fibrillation and albuminuria. UKPDS-OM2-derived lifetime QALYs were extrapolated over 70 years using historical and the new risk factor equations.
RESULTS: All new risk factor equation predictions were within 95% confidence intervals of observed values, displaying good agreement between observed and estimated values. Historical risk factor time path equations predicted trial participants would accrue 9.84 QALYs, increasing to 10.98 QALYs using contemporary equations.
DISCUSSION: Incorporating updated risk factor time path equations into diabetes simulation models could give more accurate predictions of long-term health, costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness estimates, as well as a more precise understanding of the impact of diabetes on patients' health, expenditure and quality of life.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01144338 and NCT00790205.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis.
OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious.
RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool.
SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years.
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking.
FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.
REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014869.
DESIGN: Prospective multicenter observational study from June 2020 to September 2022.
SETTING: Fifteen PICUs in PACCMAN.
PATIENTS: All children younger than 18 years old diagnosed with pneumonia and admitted to the PICU.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical, microbiologic, and outcome data were recorded. The primary outcome was PICU mortality. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate associations between PICU mortality and explanatory risk factors on presentation to the PICU. Among patients screened, 846 of 11,778 PICU patients (7.2%) with a median age of 1.2 years (interquartile range, 0.4-3.7 yr) had pneumonia. Respiratory syncytial virus was detected in 111 of 846 cases (13.1%). The most common bacteria were Staphylococcus species (71/846 [8.4%]) followed by Pseudomonas species (60/846 [7.1%]). Second-generation cephalosporins (322/846 [38.1%]) were the most common broad-spectrum antibiotics prescribed, followed by carbapenems (174/846 [20.6%]). Invasive mechanical ventilation and noninvasive respiratory support was provided in 438 of 846 (51.8%) and 500 of 846 (59.1%) patients, respectively. PICU mortality was 65 of 846 (7.7%). In the multivariable logistic regression model, age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16), Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), and drowsiness (aOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.24-6.00) were associated with greater odds of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In the PACCMAN contributing PICUs, pneumonia is a frequent cause for admission (7%) and is associated with a greater odds of mortality.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a validated Markov model, which modelled a cohort of adult patients through health states related to symptom severity and functional impairment, to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The influence of model inputs and assumptions, sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses were explored. All costs were expressed in 2022 Malaysian ringgits (RM). Costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0% as per local pharmacoeconomic guideline.
RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HF patients with EF>40% was RM 40,454 per QALY gained. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of RM 47,439/QALY gained, empagliflozin was cost-effective in 57% of replications. The model outcomes were sensitive to inputs related to the treatment effect of empagliflozin in reducing HF-related hospitalisation and cardiovascular mortality, and empagliflozin cost. For the overall HF population, the ICER was RM 29,463/QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment option for the Malaysian HF population, including those with EF>40%. As such, the intervention warrants consideration by the Malaysian healthcare provider to mitigate the burden of HF and address the unmet needs of the EF>40% population.