Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe a systematic review of population-based prevalence studies of visual impairment (VI) and blindness worldwide over the past 32 years that informs the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study.

METHODS: A systematic review (Stage 1) of medical literature from 1 January 1980 to 31 January 2012 identified indexed articles containing data on incidence, prevalence and causes of blindness and VI. Only cross-sectional population-based representative studies were selected from which to extract data for a database of age- and sex-specific data of prevalence of four distance and one near vision loss categories (presenting and best-corrected). Unpublished data and data from studies using rapid assessment methodology were later added (Stage 2).

RESULTS: Stage 1 identified 14,908 references, of which 204 articles met the inclusion criteria. Stage 2 added unpublished data from 44 rapid assessment studies and four other surveys. This resulted in a final dataset of 252 articles of 243 studies, of which 238 (98%) reported distance vision loss categories. A total of 37 studies of the final dataset reported prevalence of mild VI and four reported near VI.

CONCLUSION: We report a comprehensive systematic review of over 30 years of VI/blindness studies. While there has been an increase in population-based studies conducted in the 2000s compared to previous decades, there is limited information from certain regions (eg, Central Africa and Central and Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean and Latin America), and younger age groups, and minimal data regarding prevalence of near vision and mild distance VI.

Abstract

Graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a common complication following haematopoietic stem cell transplant but little is published about the impact of this condition on hospital readmission rates. We report a retrospective analysis of readmission rates and associated costs in 187 consecutive allogeneic transplant patients to assess the impact of GvHD. The overall readmission rate was higher in patients with GvHD (86% (101/118) vs. 59% (41/69), p < 0.001). The readmission rate was higher both in the first 100 d from transplant (p = 0.02) and in the first year following transplant (p < 0.001). 151/455 (33%) of all readmission episodes occurred within 100 d of transplant. The mean number of inpatient days was significantly higher in patients with grade III/IV acute GvHD (101 d) compared with those with grade I/II GvHD (70 d; p = 0.003). The mean cost of readmission was higher in patients with GvHD (£28 860) than in non-GvHD patients (£13 405; p = 0.002) and in patients with grade III/IV GvHD (£40 012) compared with those patients with grade I/II GvHD (£24 560; p = 0.038). Survival was higher in those with grade I/II GvHD (55%) compared to grade III/IV GvHD (14%; p < 0.001). This study shows the high economic burden and poor overall survival associated with grade III/IV GvHD.

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SR) are an evidence synthesis approach that provides robust and transparent answers toclearly formulated questions. Originally developed for use in clinical practice, SRs have wider applicability,including food and feed safety risk assessment. EFSA has implemented the use of SRs, and this documentcontributes to the further development of this in-house capacity. Since the publication of the document"Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support DecisionMaking", which mainly focuses on interventions and exposures (PECO/PICO), little has changed in this arena.Fast increasing fields of application include chemical and environmental risk assessment, and analysingenvironmental management interventions. Considering time constraints at EFSA, the use of SRs should bepursued thoughtfully. Important are the use of explicit systematic methods aimed at minimising bias andmaximising transparency in order to produce the most reliable findings that can be used to inform decisionmaking. Participants of the training courses indicated SRs should be a priority for controversial topics (whichmight be subject to greater scrutiny by external parties, including the public, and thereby would benefit frommaximum transparency) or topics for which there was disagreement amongst experts. Some areas addressed byEFSA have considerable potential impact, for example related to public health or animal trade, and these topicscould be prioritised for SR. Under severe time constraints, a full SR may not be possible, but a rapid review canbe considered. However rapid reviews are not a substitute for systematic reviews. Adoption of rapid reviewsexchanges one set of concerns (time and resources contracts) for another (lack of robustness andcomprehensiveness). In the view of the Consortium, the continuation of training opportunities is important.Appropriate commissioning of SR expertise is an important step in establishing the role of the methodology in EFSA risk assessments.

Abstract

No abstract available

Abstract

No abstract available

Abstract

No abstract available.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Adding pioglitazone or rosiglitazone to existing therapy are alternative treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy. Our objective was to develop a lifetime model of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its sequelae in order to compare the costs and benefits of pioglitazone versus rosiglitazone in combination with metformin.

METHODS: A decision-analytic model employing a first order Monte Carlo simulation of a Markov process was constructed. The model incorporated surrogate outcome measures from a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) [n = 802] that compared the glycaemic and lipid control of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone monotherapy. These efficacy data were used with a recently validated and peer-reviewed UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) algorithm to simulate the progression of these surrogate outcomes to final health outcomes, including quality of life (QOL) and mortality, and to calculate the risks of diabetic complications and death. The model perspective was of the UK NHS and included direct healthcare costs only (pounds, 2004/5 values). Patient outcomes measured in the model included life-expectancy (LE) and QALYs. The base-case analysis was run for 56-year-old male Caucasions with a haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7.57% and a body mass index of 33.14 kg/m(2).

RESULTS: Patients treated with pioglitazone experienced a reduction in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (TC : HDL-C) ratio of 0.34, whereas the TC : HDL-C ratio increased by 0.65 in those receiving rosiglitazone (p < 0.001). The HbA(1c) profile was similar between the treatment groups (p = 0.13), as were other known risk factors for diabetes complications. The lifetime healthcare costs per patient estimated by the model were 9585 pounds for pioglitazone and 10,299 pounds for rosiglitazone. Patients treated with pioglitazone had a discounted LE of 8.83 years versus 8.79 years for those treated with rosiglitazone. Patients treated with pioglitazone also gained additional QALYs (6.8070 vs 6.7686). With improved health outcomes and lower costs, treatment with pioglitazone dominated rosiglitazone treatment. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the only large head-to-head RCT comparing rosiglitazone and pioglitazone suggests that more favourable changes in serum lipid profiles in patients treated with pioglitazone translate into improved health outcomes in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality and greater gains in QOL. In addition, this analysis indicates that treatment with pioglitazone is associated with lower costs than rosiglitazone. Therefore, in the UK, adjunctive pioglitazone may represent a cost-effective treatment choice for patients with type 2 diabetes who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy.