The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma:A systematic review and economic evaluation

Objectives: To assess whether open angle glaucoma (OAG) screening meets the UK National Screening Committee criteria, to compare screening strategies with case finding, to estimate test parameters, to model estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness, and to identify areas for future research. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005. Review methods: Screening strategies were developed by wide consultation. Markov submodels were developed to represent screening strategies. Parameter estimates were determined by systematic reviews of epidemiology, economic evaluations of screening, and effectiveness (test accuracy, screening and treatment). Tailored highly sensitive electronic searches were undertaken. Results: Most potential screening tests reviewed had an estimated specificity of 85% or higher. No test was clearly most accurate, with only a few, heterogeneous studies for each test. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified. Based on two treatment RCTs, early treatment reduces the risk of progression. Extrapolating from this, and assuming accelerated progression with advancing disease severity, without treatment the mean time to blindness in at least one eye was approximately 23 years, compared to 35 years with treatment. Prevalence would have to be about 3-4% in 40 year olds with a screening interval of 10 years to approach cost-effectiveness. It is predicted that screening might be cost-effective in a 50-year-old cohort at a prevalence of 4% with a 10-year screening interval. General population screening at any age, thus, appears not to be cost-effective. Selective screening of groups with higher prevalence (family history, black ethnicity) might be worthwhile, although this would only cover 6% of the population. Extension to include other at-risk cohorts (e.g. myopia and diabetes) would include 37% of the general population, but the prevalence is then too low for screening to be considered cost-effective. Screening using a test with initial automated classification followed by assessment by a specialised optometrist, for test positives, was more cost-effective than initial specialised optometric assessment. The cost-effectiveness of the screening programme was highly sensitive to the perspective on costs (NHS or societal). In the base-case model, the NHS costs of visual impairment were estimated as £669. If annual societal costs were £8800, then screening might be considered cost-effective for a 40-year-old cohort with 1% OAG prevalence assuming a willingness to pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of lesser importance were changes to estimates of attendance for sight tests, incidence of OAG, rate of progression and utility values for each stage of OAG severity. Cost-effectiveness was not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of screening tests within the ranges observed. However, a highly specific test is required to reduce large numbers of false-positive referrals. The findings that population screening is unlikely to be cost-effective are based on an economic model whose parameter estimates have considerable uncertainty, in particular, if rate of progression and/or costs of visual impairment are higher than estimated then screening could be cost-effective. Conclusions: While population screening is not cost-effective, the targeted screening of high-risk groups may be. Procedures for identifying those at risk, for quality assuring the programme, as well as adequate service provision for those screened positive would all be needed. Glaucoma detection can be improved by increasing attendance for eye examination, and improving the performance of current testing by either refining practice or adding in a technology-based first assessment, the latter being the more cost-effective option. This has implications for any future organisational changes in community eye-care services. Further research should aim to develop and provide quality data to populate the economic model, by conducting a feasibility study of interventions to improve detection, by obtaining further data on costs of blindness, risk of progression and health outcomes, and by conducting an RCT of interventions to improve the uptake of glaucoma testing. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2007. All rights reserved.

A 6-month open-label study of the effectiveness and tolerability of galantamine in patients with Alzheimer's disease

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of galantamine in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in everyday clinical practice. Patient selection was made on 36 sequential patients attending Belfast City Hospital Memory Clinic between December 2000 and June 2001. Patients were treated with galantamine for 6 months, starting from 4 mg twice daily increasing to 8 mg twice daily and then to 12 mg twice daily at 4-weekly intervals. Patients (25 females, 11 males), mean age 78 years (59-90), were diagnosed with probable AD and had a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 10-26. Efficacy was assessed using the MMSE, neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), neuropsychiatric inventory caregiver distress (NPI-D) scale and the Bristol activities of daily living (B-ADL) scale at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Mean improvements were noted on all four measures of efficacy at 3 and 6 months; improvements were significant on the MMSE, NPI and NPI-D at 3 months and on the NPI-D at 6 months. Galantamine was overall well tolerated. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, particularly nausea. Four patients stopped treatment due to adverse events, and seven were stabilised on 8 mg twice daily as they were unable to tolerate the target dose. This naturalistic study confirms clinical trial data, which shows galantamine improves cognition and behavioural symptoms and is overall well tolerated. © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Organisational controls, typologies and time scales of paraglacial gravel-dominated coastal systems

The fundamental controls on the initiation and development of gravel-dominated deposits (beaches and barriers) on paraglacial coasts are particle size and shape, sediment supply, storm wave activity (primarily runup), relative sea-level (RSL) change, and terrestrial basement structure (primarily as it affects accommodation space). This paper examines the stochastic basis for barrier organisation as shown by variation in gravel barrier architecture. We recognise punctuated self-organisation of barrier development that is disrupted by short phases of barrier instability. The latter results from positive feedback causing barrier breakdown when sediment supply is exhausted. We examine published typologies for gravel barriers and advocate a consolidated perspective using rate of RSL change and sediment supply. We also consider the temporal variation in controls on barrier development. These are examined in terms of a simple behavioural model (BARCH) for prograding gravel barrier architecture and its sensitivity to such controls. The nature of macroscale (102–103 years) gravel barrier development, including inherited characteristics that influence barrier genesis, as well as forcing from changing RSL, sediment supply, headland control and barrier inertia, is examined in the context of long-surviving barriers along the southern England coastline.