Substantial progress has been made in the awareness, treatment, and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women since the first women-specific clinical recommendations for the prevention of CVD were published by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 1999.1 The myth that heart disease is a “man’s disease” has been debunked; the rate of public awareness of CVD as the leading cause of death among US women has increased from 30% in 1997 to 54% in 2009.2 The age-adjusted death rate resulting from coronary heart disease (CHD) in females, which accounts for about half of all CVD deaths in women, was 95.7 per 100 000 females in 2007, a third of what it was in 1980.3,4 Approximately 50% of this decline in CHD deaths has been attributed to reducing major risk factors and the other half to treatment of CHD including secondary preventive therapies.4 Major randomized controlled clinical trials such as the Women’s Health Initiative have changed the practice of CVD prevention in women over the past decade.5 The investment in combating this major public health issue for women has been significant, as have the scientific and medical achievements.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820faaf8

Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women-2011 update: A Guideline from the American Heart Association

The first global survey of bariatric/metabolic surgery based on data from the nations or national groupings of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Diseases (IFSO) was published in 1998, followed by reports in 2003, 2009, 2011, and 2012. In this survey, we report a global overview of worldwide bariatric surgery in 2013. A questionnaire evaluating the number and the type of bariatric procedure performed in 2013 was emailed to all members of bariatric societies belonging to IFSO. Trend analyses from 2003 to 2013 were also performed. There were 49/54 (90.7 %) responders; 37 of the 49 with national registries. The total number of bariatric procedures performed worldwide in 2013 was 468,609, 95.7 % carried out laparoscopically. The highest number (n = 154,276) was from the USA/Canada region. The most commonly performed procedure in the world was Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 45 %; followed by sleeve gastrectomy (SG), 37 %; and adjustable gastric banding (AGB), 10 %. Most significant were the rise in prevalence of SG from 0 to 37 % of the world total from 2003 to 2013, and the fall in AGB of 68 % from its peak in 2008 to 2013. SG is currently the most frequently performed procedure in the USA/Canada and in the Asia/Pacific regions, and second to RYGB in the Europe and Latin/South America regions. The accuracy of the IFSO-based world survey of procedures would be enhanced if each nation or national group would create a national registry.

/pdf/bariatric-surgery-worldwide-2013-142vq9l9a5.pdf

Bariatric Surgery Worldwide 2013.

Background: bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. The effects of the available bariatric procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and most recently updated in 2009. Objectives: to assess the effects of bariatric surgery for overweight and obesity, including the control of comorbidities. Search methods: studies were obtained from searches of numerous databases, supplemented with searches of reference lists and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of last search was November 2013. Selection criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical interventions with non-surgical management of obesity or overweight or comparing different surgical procedures. Data collection and analysis: data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument. Main results: twenty-two trials with 1798 participants were included; sample sizes ranged from 15 to 250. Most studies followed participants for 12, 24 or 36 months; the longest follow-up was 10 years. The risk of bias across all domains of most trials was uncertain; just one was judged to have adequate allocation concealment. All seven RCTs comparing surgery with non-surgical interventions found benefits of surgery on measures of weight change at one to two years follow-up. Improvements for some aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL) (two RCTs) and diabetes (five RCTs) were also found. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Five studies reported data on mortality, no deaths occurred. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in four studies and ranged from 0% to 37% in the surgery groups and 0% to 25% in the no surgery groups. Between 2% and 13% of participants required reoperations in the five studies that reported these data. Three RCTs found that laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L)(RYGB) achieved significantly greater weight loss and body mass index (BMI) reduction up to five years after surgery compared with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Mean end-of-study BMI was lower following LRYGB compared with LAGB: mean difference (MD) -5.2 kg/m² (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4 to -4.0; P Open RYGB, LRYGB and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) led to losses of weight and/or BMI but there was no consistent picture as to which procedure was better or worse in the seven included trials. MD was -0.2 kg/m² (95% CI -1.8 to 1.3); 353 participants; 6 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of LRYGB. No statistically significant differences in QoL were found (one RCT). Six RCTs reported mortality; one death occurred following LRYGB. SAEs were reported by one RCT and were higher in the LRYGB group (4.5%) than the LSG group (0.9%). Reoperations ranged from 6.7% to 24% in the LRYGB group and 3.3% to 34% in the LSG group. Effects on comorbidities, complications and additional surgical procedures were neutral, except gastro-oesophageal reflux disease improved following LRYGB (one RCT). One RCT of people with a BMI 25 to 35 and type 2 diabetes found laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss and improvement of diabetes compared with LSG, and had similar levels of complications. Two RCTs found that biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BDDS) resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB in morbidly obese patients. End-of-study mean BMI loss was greater following BDDS: MD -7.3 kg/m² (95% CI -9.3 to -5.4); P One RCT comparing laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus LRYGB found BMI, excess weight loss, and rates of remission of diabetes and hypertension were similar at 12 months follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, SAEs and reoperation rates were not reported. No deaths occurred in either group. One RCT comparing laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) versus LAGB found greater improvement in weight-loss outcomes following LISG at three years follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, mortality and SAEs were not reported. Reoperations occurred in 20% of the LAGB group and in 10% of the LISG group. One RCT (unpublished) comparing laparoscopic gastric imbrication with LSG found no statistically significant difference in weight loss between groups (very low quality evidence). QoL and comorbidities were not reported. No deaths occurred. Two participants in the gastric imbrication group required reoperation. Authors' conclusions: surgery results in greater improvement in weight loss outcomes and weight associated comorbidities compared with non-surgical interventions, regardless of the type of procedures used. When compared with each other, certain procedures resulted in greater weight loss and improvements in comorbidities than others. Outcomes were similar between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy, and both of these procedures had better outcomes than adjustable gastric banding. For people with very high BMI, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB. Duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic RYGB had similar outcomes, however this is based on one small trial. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy led to better weight-loss outcomes than adjustable gastric banding after three years follow-up. This was based on one trial only. Weight-related outcomes were similar between laparoscopic gastric imbrication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in one trial. Across all studies adverse event rates and reoperation rates were generally poorly reported. Most trials followed participants for only one or two years, therefore the long-term effects of surgery remain unclear.

Surgery for weight loss in adults

Objective To quantify the overall effects of bariatric surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for obesity. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis based on a random effects model. Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to December 2012 regardless of language or publication status. Eligibility criteria Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials with ≥6 months of follow-up that included individuals with a body mass index ≥30, compared current bariatric surgery techniques with non-surgical treatment, and reported on body weight, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life, or adverse events. Results The meta-analysis included 11 studies with 796 individuals (range of mean body mass index at baseline 30-52). Individuals allocated to bariatric surgery lost more body weight (mean difference −26 kg (95% confidence interval −31 to −21)) compared with non-surgical treatment, had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes (relative risk 22.1 (3.2 to 154.3) in a complete case analysis; 5.3 (1.8 to 15.8) in a conservative analysis assuming diabetes remission in all non-surgically treated individuals with missing data) and metabolic syndrome (relative risk 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) in complete case analysis; 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3) in conservative analysis), greater improvements in quality of life and reductions in medicine use (no pooled data). Plasma triglyceride concentrations decreased more (mean difference −0.7 mmol/L (−1.0 to −0.4) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations increased more (mean difference 0.21 mmol/L (0.1 to 0.3)). Changes in blood pressure and total or low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations were not significantly different. There were no cardiovascular events or deaths reported after bariatric surgery. The most common adverse events after bariatric surgery were iron deficiency anaemia (15% of individuals undergoing malabsorptive bariatric surgery) and reoperations (8%). Conclusions Compared with non-surgical treatment of obesity, bariatric surgery leads to greater body weight loss and higher remission rates of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. However, results are limited to two years of follow-up and based on a small number of studies and individuals. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42012003317 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/347/bmj.f5934.full.pdf

Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Bariatric Surgery Worldwide

Objectives: to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. Data sources: seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references Review methods: two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) ? 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI ? 40; BMI ? 30 and Results: a total of 5386 references were identified of which 26 were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions and 20 RCTs compared different surgical procedures. Bariatric surgery was a more effective intervention for weight loss than non-surgical options. In one large cohort study weight loss was still apparent 10 years after surgery, whereas patients receiving conventional treatment had gained weight. Some measures of QoL improved after surgery, but not others. After surgery statistically fewer people had metabolic syndrome and there was higher remission of Type 2 diabetes than in non-surgical groups. In one large cohort study the incidence of three out of six comorbidities assessed 10 years after surgery was significantly reduced compared with conventional therapy. Gastric bypass (GBP) was more effective for weight loss than vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) was more effective than AGB in one study. GBP and banded GBP led to similar weight loss and results for GBP versus LISG and VBG versus AGB were equivocal. All comparisons of open versus laparoscopic surgeries found similar weight losses in each group. Comorbidities after surgery improved in all groups, but with no significant differences between different surgical interventions. Adverse event reporting varied; mortality ranged from none to 10%. Adverse events from conventional therapy included intolerance to medication, acute cholecystitis and gastrointestinal problems. Major adverse events following surgery, some necessitating reoperation, included anastomosis leakage, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, band slippage and band erosion. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective in comparison to non-surgical treatment in the reviewed published estimates of cost-effectiveness. However, these estimates are likely to be unreliable and not generalisable because of methodological shortcomings and the modelling assumptions made. Therefore a new economic model was developed. Surgical management was more costly than non-surgical management in each of the three patient populations analysed, but gave improved outcomes. For morbid obesity, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (base case) ranged between £2000 and £4000 per QALY gained. They remained within the range regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective when assumptions for deterministic sensitivity analysis were changed. For BMI ? 30 and Conclusions: bariatric surgery appears to be a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for moderately to severely obese people compared with non-surgical interventions. Uncertainties remain and further research is required to provide detailed data on patient QoL; impact of surgeon experience on outcome; late complications leading to reoperation; duration of comorbidity remission; resource use. Good-quality RCTs will provide evidence on bariatric surgery for young people and for adults with class I or class II obesity. New research must report on the resolution and/or development of comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension so that the potential benefits of early intervention can be assessed.

/pdf/the-clinical-effectiveness-and-cost-effectiveness-of-uew41hb9iv.pdf

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Many deaths from cancer are caused by metastatic burden. Prognosis and survival rates vary, but survival beyond 5 years of patients with untreated metastatic disease in the liver is rare. Treatment for liver metastases has largely been surgical resection, but this is feasible in only approximately 20–30% of people. Non-surgical alternatives to treat some liver metastases can include various forms of ablative therapies and other targeted treatments. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the different ablative and minimally invasive therapies for treating liver metastases. Data sources: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from 1990 to September 2011. Experts were consulted and bibliographies checked. Review methods: Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies and minimally invasive therapies used for people with liver metastases. Studies were any prospective study with sample size greater than 100 participants. A probabilistic model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies where data permitted. Results: The evidence assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative and other minimally invasive therapies was limited. Nine studies of ablative therapies were included in the review; each had methodological shortcomings and few had a comparator group. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) of microwave ablation versus surgical resection was identified and showed no improvement in outcomes compared with resection. In two prospective case series studies that investigated the use of laser ablation, mean survival ranged from 41 to 58 months. One cohort study compared radiofrequency ablation with surgical resection and five case series studies also investigated the use of radiofrequency ablation. Across these studies the median survival ranged from 44 to 52 months. Seven studies of minimally invasive therapies were included in the review. Two RCTs compared chemoembolisation with chemotherapy only. Overall survival was not compared between groups and methodological shortcomings mean that conclusions are difficult to make. Two case series studies of laser ablation following chemoembolisation were also included; however, these provide little evidence of the use of these technologies in combination. Three RCTs of radioembolisation were included. Significant improvements in tumour response and time to disease progression were demonstrated; however, benefits in terms of survival were equivocal. An exploratory survival model was developed using data from the review of clinical effectiveness. The model includes separate analyses of microwave ablation compared with surgery and radiofrequency ablation compared with surgery and one of radioembolisation in conjunction with hepatic artery chemotherapy compared with hepatic artery chemotherapy alone. Microwave ablation was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3664 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with microwave ablation being associated with reduced cost but also with poorer outcome than surgery. Radiofrequency ablation compared with surgical resection for solitary metastases Conclusions: There is currently limited high-quality research evidence upon which to base any firm decisions regarding ablative therapies for liver metastases. Further trials should compare ablative therapies with surgery, in particular. A RCT would provide the most appropriate design for undertaking any further evaluation and should include a full economic evaluation, but the group to be randomised needs careful selection. Source of funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2002506

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation

JL Colquitt

Papers

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ablative therapies in the management of liver metastases: systematic review and economic evaluation

Atezolizumab for treating locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma

Variables included in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, sampling distributions and parameterisation of sampling distributions

Necitumumab for untreated advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer