Management of Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy Volume 1. Evidence Report and Appendices: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, Number 77

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Chapell ◽  
James Reston ◽  
David Snyder ◽  
Jonathan Treadwell ◽  
Stephen Tregear ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (63) ◽  
pp. 1-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kessler ◽  
Alison Burns ◽  
Debbie Tallon ◽  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Stephanie MacNeill ◽  
...  

Background Depression is usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only half of those treated respond to a single antidepressant. Objectives To investigate whether or not combining mirtazapine with serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants results in better patient outcomes and more efficient NHS care than SNRI or SSRI therapy alone in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design The MIR trial was a two-parallel-group, multicentre, pragmatic, placebo-controlled randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual. Setting Participants were recruited from primary care in Bristol, Exeter, Hull/York and Manchester/Keele. Participants Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years; were taking a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose; scored ≥ 14 points on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II); were adherent to medication; and met the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, criteria for depression. Interventions Participants were randomised using a computer-generated code to either oral mirtazapine or a matched placebo, starting at a dose of 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily for up to 12 months, in addition to their usual antidepressant. Participants, their general practitioners (GPs) and the research team were blind to the allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation compared with baseline, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) included response, remission of depression, change in anxiety symptoms, adverse events (AEs), quality of life, adherence to medication, health and social care use and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study explored patients’ views and experiences of managing depression and GPs’ views on prescribing a second antidepressant. Results There were 480 patients randomised to the trial (mirtazapine and usual care, n = 241; placebo and usual care, n = 239), of whom 431 patients (89.8%) were followed up at 12 weeks. BDI-II scores at 12 weeks were lower in the mirtazapine group than the placebo group after adjustment for baseline BDI-II score and minimisation and stratification variables [difference –1.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.92 to 0.27 points; p = 0.087]. This was smaller than the minimum clinically important difference and the CI included the null. The difference became smaller at subsequent time points (24 weeks: –0.85 points, 95% CI –3.12 to 1.43 points; 12 months: 0.17 points, 95% CI –2.13 to 2.46 points). More participants in the mirtazapine group withdrew from the trial medication, citing mild AEs (46 vs. 9 participants). Conclusions This study did not find convincing evidence of a clinically important benefit for mirtazapine in addition to a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant over placebo in primary care patients with TRD. There was no evidence that the addition of mirtazapine was a cost-effective use of NHS resources. GPs and patients were concerned about adding an additional antidepressant. Limitations Voluntary unblinding for participants after the primary outcome at 12 weeks made interpretation of longer-term outcomes more difficult. Future work Treatment-resistant depression remains an area of important, unmet need, with limited evidence of effective treatments. Promising interventions include augmentation with atypical antipsychotics and treatment using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06653773; EudraCT number 2012-000090-23. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 195-196
Author(s):  
Tom Jefferson ◽  
Iosief Abraha ◽  
Anna Maria Vincenza Amicosante ◽  
Mirella Corio ◽  
Antonio Migliore ◽  
...  

INTRODUCTION:While optimal medical therapy (OMT) represents the current standard of care for treatment-resistant hypertension, non-pharmaceutical therapeutic approaches, such as renal denervation and carotid baroreceptor stimulation therapy, have been proposed. The present Health Technology Assessment (HTA) project was aimed at assessing benefits and risk of those approaches versus OMT.METHODS:A systematic review of evidence on effectiveness and safety was performed together with a review of economic studies. A contextual analysis of market availability and use of the technology in Italy was also performed.RESULTS:In Italy, ninety-nine renal denervation procedures were performed in 2014. Ten studies from six trials were included in the review and meta-analysis. No evidence of dominance or increased harms of renal denervation compared to OMT were found. Four economic evaluations were included and reported dominance of renal denervation. These were based on short-term clinical data and three evaluations used the same Markov model assuming dominance of renal denervation. Estimated average prospective cost of the procedure was EUR6,129.90 (range EUR3,821.15 – EUR9,714.23). We updated the results of an earlier assessment published by an Italian Regional agency on carotid baroreceptor stimulation therapy (1). None of the three studies identified as ongoing in 2015 were completed or had published preliminary results and the technology was not assessed further within the present HTA project.CONCLUSIONS:Even if follow-up was limited to 6 months, randomised evidence showed no benefits of the procedure. Economic evaluations were unreliable, based on unrealistic assumptions of effectiveness and contrived therapy regimes. Further investment in renal denervation should await the results of well-designed and adequately followed-up trials assessing the impact of renal denervation on major cardiovascular events compared to OMT. Future economic evaluations should be based on realistic assumptions of cost and effectiveness.


2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Heel ◽  
Sonja Fischer ◽  
Stefan Fischer ◽  
Tobias Grässer ◽  
Ellen Hämmerling ◽  
...  

Zunächst führt dieser Artikel in die wesentlichen Begrifflichkeiten und Zielstellungen der Versorgungsforschung ein. Er befasst sich dann mit der Frage, wie die einzelnen Teildisziplinen der Versorgungsforschung, (1) die Bedarfsforschung, (2) die Inanspruchnahmeforschung, (3) die Organisationsforschung, (4) das Health Technology Assessment, (5) die Versorgungsökonomie, (6) die Qualitätsforschung und zuletzt (7) die Versorgungsepidemiologie konzeptionell zu fassen sind, und wie sie für neuropsychologische Anliegen ausformuliert werden müssen. In diesem Zusammenhang werden die in den einzelnen Bereichen jeweils vorliegenden versorgungsrelevanten Studienergebnisse referiert. Soweit es zulässig ist, werden Bedarfe für die Versorgungsforschung und Versorgungspraxis in der Neurorehabilitation daraus abgeleitet und Anregungen für die weitere empirische Forschung formuliert. Der Artikel bezieht sich – entsprechend seines Anliegens – ausschließlich auf Studien, die sich mit der Situation der deutschen Neurorehabilitation befassen.


Author(s):  
Bradley N. Gaynes ◽  
Norma Gavin ◽  
Samantha Meltzer-Brody ◽  
Kathleen N. Lohr ◽  
Tammeka Swinson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document