Systematic Review Protocol to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Personalised Surveillance after Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy

Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 5% and five-year survival at early-stage is 92%. CRC risk following index colonoscopy should establish post-screening surveillance benefit, which may be greater in high-risk patients. This review evaluated published cost-effectiveness estimates of post-polypectomy surveillance to assess the potential for personalised recommendations by risk sub-group. Current data suggested colonoscopy identifies those at low-risk of CRC, who may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harms and inefficient use of colonoscopy resources. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced-neoplasia post-polypectomy for low-risk was comparable to those without adenoma; both rates were under the lifetime risk of 5%. Therefore, greater personalisation through de-intensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial and could employ non-invasive testing such as faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention, thereby reserving colonoscopy for targeted use in personalised risk-stratified surveillance.
This systematic review aims to:
1. Assess if there is evidence supporting a program of personalised surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk sub-group.
2. Compare the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies.
3. Assess trade-off between costs, benefits and adverse effects which must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalised surveillance.

Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute Organ Dysfunction in Sepsis

BACKGROUND Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing drug with inotropic and other properties that may improve outcomes in patients with sepsis. 
METHODS We conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to investigate whether levosimendan reduces the severity of organ dysfunction in adults with sepsis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a blinded infusion of levosimendan (at a dose of 0.05 to 0.2 μg per kilogram of body weight per minute) for 24 hours or placebo in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was the mean daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the intensive care unit up to day 28 (scores for each of five systems range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction; maximum score, 20). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to weaning from mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. 
RESULTS The trial recruited 516 patients; 259 were assigned to receive levosimendan and 257 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) SOFA score between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (6.68±3.96 vs. 6.06±3.89; mean difference, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.07 to 1.29; P=0.053). Mortality at 28 days was 34.5% in the levosimendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.5 to 11.7; P=0.43). Among patients requiring ventilation at baseline, those in the levosimendan group were less likely than those in the placebo group to be successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation over the period of 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97; P=0.03). More patients in the levosimendan group than in the placebo group had supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.3; P=0.04). 
CONCLUSIONS The addition of levosimendan to standard treatment in adults with sepsis was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction or lower mortality. Levosimendan was associated with a lower likelihood of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and a higher risk of supraventricular tachyarrhythmia. (Funded by the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and others; LeoPARDS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN12776039.)