Actinic keratosis (AK) is a chronic skin condition that may progress to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. We conducted a systematic review of efficacy and safety for key treatments for AK of the face and scalp, including the novel 5-day tirbanibulin 1% ointment. MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and regulatory body websites were searched. The review included 46 studies, of which 35 studies included interventions commonly used in Europe and were sufficiently homogenous to inform a Bayesian network meta-analysis of complete clearance against topical placebo or vehicle. The network meta-analysis revealed the following odds ratios and 95% credible intervals: cryosurgery 13.4 (6.2–30.3); diclofenac 3% 2.9 (1.9–4.3); fluorouracil 0.5% + salicylic acid 7.6 (4.6–13.5); fluorouracil 4% 30.3 (9.1–144.7); fluorouracil 5% 35.0 (10.2–164.4); imiquimod 3.75% 8.5 (3.5–22.4); imiquimod 5% 17.9 (9.1–36.6); ingenol mebutate 0.015% 12.5 (8.1–19.9); photodynamic therapy with aminolevulinic acid 24.1 (10.9–52.8); photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate 11.7 (6.0–21.9); tirbanibulin 1% 11.1 (6.2–20.9). Four sensitivity analyses, from studies assessing efficacy after one treatment cycle only, for ≤25 cm² treatment area, after 8 weeks post-treatment, and with single placebo/vehicle node confirmed the findings from the base case. Safety outcomes were assessed qualitatively. These results suggest that tirbanibulin 1% offers a novel treatment for AK, with a single short treatment period, favourable safety profile and efficacy, in line with existing topical treatments available in Europe.

Acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusions (LVOs) is a major contributor to stroke deaths and disabilities; however, identification for emergency treatment is challenging. We recruited two separate cohorts of suspected stroke patients and screened a panel of blood-derived protein biomarkers for LVO detection. Diagnostic performance was estimated by using blood biomarkers in combination with NIHSS-derived stroke severity scales. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that D-dimer (OR 16, 95% CI 5–60; p-value < 0.001) and GFAP (OR 0.002, 95% CI 0–0.68; p-value < 0.05) comprised the optimal panel for LVO detection. Combinations of D-dimer and GFAP with a number of stroke severity scales increased the number of true positives, while reducing false positives due to hemorrhage, as compared to stroke scales alone (p-value < 0.001). A combination of the biomarkers with FAST-ED resulted in the highest accuracy at 95% (95% CI: 87–99%), with sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 72–99%), and specificity of 96% (95% CI: 90–99%). Diagnostic accuracy was confirmed in an independent cohort, in which accuracy was again shown to be 95% (95% CI: 87–99%), with a sensitivity of 82% (95% CI: 57–96%), and specificity of 98% (95% CI: 92–100%). Accordingly, the combination of D-dimer and GFAP with stroke scales may provide a simple and highly accurate tool for identifying LVO patients, with a potential impact on time to treatment.

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent ~ 20% of all hospital-acquired infections in surgical patients and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, admission to intensive care, and mortality. We conducted a systematic review with economic and environmental models to assess whether triclosan-coated sutures (Plus Sutures) provide benefits over non-coated sutures in the reduction of SSI risk. Methods: Searches were conducted in fifteen databases. A total of 1,991 records were retrieved. Following deduplication and screening by two independent reviewers, 31 randomized controlled trials in adults and children were included in the review. Similarity of the studies was assessed by narrative review and confirmed by quantitative assessment. A fixed effects meta-analysis of SSI incidence model including all groups of patients estimated a risk ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.79) indicating those in the Plus Sutures group had a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an SSI compared with those in the control group (p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were analysed qualitatively. Results: The economic model estimated the use of Plus Sutures to result in average cost savings of £13.63 per patient. Plus Sutures remained cost-saving in all subgroup analyses with cost-savings ranging between £11 (clean wounds) and £140 (non-clean wounds). The environmental impact of SSI is substantial, and the model suggests that the introduction of Plus Sutures could result in potential environmental benefits. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that Plus Sutures are associated with a reduced incidence of SSI across all surgery types alongside cost savings when compared with standard sutures.

This research aimed to develop best-practice recommendations for identifying the "standard of care" (SoC) and integrate it when it is the comparator in diagnostic economic models (SoC comparator). A multi-methods approach comprising two pragmatic literature reviews and nine expert interviews was used. Experts rated their agreement with draft recommendations based on the authors' analysis of the reviews. These were refined iteratively to produce final recommendations. Fourteen best-practice recommendations are provided. Care pathway mapping (using quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods approaches) should be used for identifying the SoC comparator. Guidelines analysis can be integrated with expert opinion to identify pathway variability and discrepancies from clinical practice. For integrating the SoC comparator into the model, recommendations around structure, input sourcing, data aggregation and reporting, input uncertainty, and model variability are presented. For example, modellers should consider that the reference standard is not synonymous with the SoC and the SoC may not be the only comparator. The comparator limitations should be discussed with clinical experts, but elicitation of its diagnostic accuracy is not recommended. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis is recommended when evaluating the overall input uncertainty, and deterministic sensitivity analysis is useful when there is high model uncertainty or SoC variability. Consensus could not be reached for some topics (e.g. the role of real-world data, model averaging and alternative model structures), but the reported discussions provide points for consideration. To our knowledge this is the first guidance to support modellers when identifying and operationalising the SoC comparator in diagnostic cost-effectiveness models.

No routine laboratory biomarkers perform well enough in diagnosing COVID-19 in isolation for them to be used as a standalone diagnostic test or to help clinicians prioritize patients for treatment. Instead, other diagnostic tests are needed. The aim of this work was to statistically summarise routine laboratory biomarker measurements in COVID-19-positive and -negative patients to inform future work. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed. The search included names of commonly used, routine laboratory tests in the UK NHS, and focused on research papers reporting laboratory results of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. A random effects meta-analysis of the standardized mean difference between COVID-19-positive and -negative groups was conducted for each biomarker. When comparing reported laboratory biomarker results, we identified decreased white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, eosinophil, and platelet counts; while lactate dehydrogenase, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase were elevated in COVID-19-positive compared to COVID-19-negative patients. Differences were identified across a number of routine laboratory biomarkers between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. Further research is required to identify whether routine laboratory biomarkers can be used in the development of a clinical scoring system to aid with triage of patients.

Introduction: Adult-onset Still’s disease (AOSD) is a rare systemic inflammatory disease of unknown etiology. Published AOSD data are limited, and clinical guidelines were lacking until recently. Managing AOSD remains largely empirical with uncertainties and high variability about the optimal care pathway. Therefore, we used a qualitative approach to collect clinical judgments from the UK, Italy, France and Germany to inform the development of an agreed care pathway. Our work aimed to decrease the uncertainty associated with clinical practice, inform future research in AOSD, and help identify standardized definitions and outcomes in this population.Methods: Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis were conducted. Eleven clinicians were interviewed between May and July 2022: four were based in Italy, three in the UK, two in France, and two in Germany.Results: In this work, we identified the structure of the typical care pathway for AOSD patients, which can be used to inform future economic models in AOSD. The general structure of the pathway was similar across countries. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are prescribed during the diagnostic workup while an additive approach is commonly used in confirmed cases: corticosteroids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, then biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) (dose increased before switching). For severe presentations, more aggressive approaches with higher doses and early use of bDMARDs are used. The main elements of variation among countries and clinicians were the criteria used for diagnosis; order of bDMARDs and preferential treatments for articular and systemic patients; and tests for patient monitoring. There is also a lack of standardized outcome measures making comparisons and evidence synthesis challenging.Conclusion: We identified important evidence gaps for clinical practice, e.g., reliable tests or scores predictive of disease progression and treatment outcome, and recommendations for research, e.g., reporting of compliance rates and use of the Yamaguchi criteria for clinical study inclusion. Consensus is needed around the use of the Systemic score in clinical practice and the clinical utility of this score. A standardized definition of remission is also required in AOSD, and further research should look to identify and validate the specific laboratory markers to be considered when assessing remission.