Cabazitaxel for hormone-relapsed metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen (review of TA255)

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer amongst men in the England and currently affects ~40,000 people around 6,000 of whom suffer from metastatic disease. Overall patients with metastatic disease have a life expectancy of less than 24 months and a poor prognosis.

Docetaxel was the first agent to show survival benefit in metastatic Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer (mHRPC) and since approval by NICE in 2006 (TA101) has for many years been the mainstay of treatment.

To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel within its marketing authorisation for treating hormone-relapsed metastatic prostate cancer previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen.

Clinical Outcomes in 3343 Children and Adults with Rheumatic Heart Disease from 14 Low and Middle Income Countries: 2-Year Follow-up of the Global Rheumatic Heart Disease Registry (the REMEDY study)

BACKGROUND: -There are few contemporary data on the mortality and morbidity associated with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) or information on their predictors. We report the two year follow-up of individuals with RHD from 14 low and middle income countries in Africa and Asia.

METHODS: -Between January 2010 and November 2012, we enrolled 3343 patients from 25 centers in 14 countries and followed them for two years to assess mortality, congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), recurrent acute rheumatic fever (ARF), and infective endocarditis (IE).

RESULTS: -Vital status at 24 months was known for 2960 (88.5%) patients. Two thirds were female. Although patients were young (median age 28 years, interquartile range 18 to 40), the two year case fatality rate was high (500 deaths, 16.9%). Mortality rate was 116.3/1000 patient-years in the first year and 65.4/1000 patient-years in the second year. Median age at death was 28.7 years. Independent predictors of death were severe valve disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80-3.11), CHF (HR 2.16, 95% CI 1.70-2.72), New York Heart Association functional class III/IV (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.32-2.10), atrial fibrillation (AF) (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10-1.78) and older age (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.02 per year increase) at enrolment. Post-primary education (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.85) and female sex (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.52-0.80) were associated with lower risk of death. 204 (6.9%) had new CHF (incidence, 38.42/1000 patient-years), 46 (1.6%) had a stroke or TIA (8.45/1000 patient-years), 19 (0.6%) had ARF (3.49/1000 patient-years), and 20 (0.7%) had IE (3.65/1000 patient-years). Previous stroke and older age were independent predictors of stroke/TIA or systemic embolism. Patients from low and lower-middle income countries had significantly higher age- and sex-adjusted mortality compared to patients from upper-middle income countries. Valve surgery was significantly more common in upper-middle income than in lower-middle- or low-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS: -Patients with clinical RHD have high mortality and morbidity despite being young; those from low and lower-middle income countries had a poorer prognosis associated with advanced disease and low education. Programs focused on early detection and treatment of clinical RHD are required to improve outcomes.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries.