Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

56 Results (3) – objective ETABLE 13 Numbers of patients with data for BCVA in the best-seeing eye and HRQoL instrument for different HRQoLinstruments and durations since first treatmentHRQoL instrumentDuration of follow-up in months0 3 6 9 12 > 12SF-36 – PCS 1196 116 680 158 459 383 2992SF-36 – MCS 1196 116 680 158 459 383 2992SF-6D 1156 117 683 152 469 385 2962NEIVFQ – composite 1270 130 739 174 504 435 3252NEIVFQ – distance activities 1267 129 736 174 504 434 3244NEIVFQ – near activities 1268 130 739 174 504 435 3250TotalTABLE 14 Numbers of patients with data for CS in the best-seeing eye and HRQoL instrument for different HRQoLinstruments and durations since first treatmentHRQoL instrumentDuration of follow-up (months)0 3 6 9 12 > 12SF-36 – PCS 1122 82 599 108 392 320 2623SF-36 – MCS 1122 82 599 108 392 320 2623SF-6D 1084 81 605 104 401 325 2600NEIVFQ – composite 1187 89 649 119 428 356 2828NEIVFQ – distance activities 1184 88 647 119 428 355 2821NEIVFQ – near activities 1185 89 649 119 428 356 2826Total10.8SF-6D utility score0.60.40.2–20 0 20 40 60 80 100Best BCVA in either eyeFIGURE 13 Scatterplot showing SF-6D preference-based measure of health (equivalent to utility score) comparedwith better-seeing eye BCVA. The fitted regression line (see Table 15) is superimposed on a scatterplot of the raw data.Values of BCVA < 0 (–10 and –20) represent ‘counting fingers’ and ‘hand movements’ levels of vision respectively.
DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technology Assessment 2012; Vol. 16: No. 657TABLE 15 Relationships between visual function and SF-6D/SF-36HRQoLscoreHRQoLscaleLinear regression coefficient(95% CI)Quadratic regressioncoefficient (95% CI)HRQoL change per 100HRQoL change per fiveline) a range) aletters (≡ one chart letters (i.e. whole chartBCVASF-6D 0–1 0.0012 (0.0009 to 0.0014) – 0.0058 0.116SF-36 PCS b Mean = 50 0.049 (0.025 to 0.073) – 0.245 4.906SF-36 MCS b Mean = 50 0.109 (0.078 to 0.140) – 0.546 10.920HRQoL change perthree letters (i.e. onecontrast sensitivitytriad) a,c HRQoL change per 48letters (i.e. whole chartrange) aCSSF-6D 0–1 –0.0016 (–0.0041 to 0.0009) 0.0001 (0.00003 to 0.014 ~0.140.00015)SF-36 PCS Mean = 50 –0.269 (–0.476 to –0.062) 0.008 (0.003 to 0.013) 0.792 ~7.7SF-36 MCS Mean = 50 –0.120 (–0.382 to 0.143) 0.008 (0.002 to 0.016) 1.155 ~12.1a Estimated HRQoL change assumes the change in BCVA CS occurs in the better-seeing eye.b PCS and MCS: scored on a scale with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. PCS and MCS are also normalised, i.e. 50 represents the mean for thereference (i.e. ‘normal’) population.c Change in HRQoL estimated for a three-letter contrast sensitivity triad from 35 to 32 letters for relationships.Contrast sensitivity in the better-seeing eye predicted SF-6D, PCS and MCS (p < 0.01 for all threeHRQoL measures) but less strongly. The relationship between CS and the SF-6D utility scoreis shown in Figure 14, with the fitted regression superimposed. For all HRQoL measures, thebest-fitting models were positive and quadratic, with the fitted values tending to an asymptotewhen < 15 letters could be read (see Figure 14). As with BCVA, no evidence was found to supportthe prior hypothesis of a sigmoid relationship. Predicted changes in SF-6D, PCS and MCS forthree-letter (one ‘triad’) and 48-letter reductions in BCVA are shown in Table 15. The latterpredicted changes are described as approximate because the quadratic models sometimes causedfitted values to increase slightly when very few letters were read. The predicted changes reportedare the fitted value for 48 letters minus the minimum fitted value.For predominantly classic nAMD lesions, VPDT was observed to confer a net benefit of 11ETDRS and 5 CS letters after 1 year. 4,30 Based on the best-fitting model for SF-6D, these visualfunction benefits ‘translate’ into utility differences of 0.013 and 0.022 respectively (on a scale of0–1). In the VPDT cohort study, the net BCVA benefit compared with the TAP sham VPDTgroup was slightly smaller, at about nine letters (see Figure 7); this BCVA benefit ‘translates’ into autility difference of about 0.011.For minimally classic nAMD lesions, VPDT was observed to confer a net benefit of four ETDRSletters after 1 year. 4,30 Based on the best-fitting model for SF-6D, these visual function benefits‘translate’ into a utility difference of 0.005. The net BCVA benefit observed in the study, of aboutfive letters (see Figure 8), ‘translates’ into a utility difference of about 0.006.Vision-specific health-related quality of lifeIn the better-seeing eye, BCVA also strongly predicted the composite total NEIVFQ score, andthe distance and near activity subscales (p < 0.0001 for all three NEIVFQ scores). The relationshipbetween BCVA in the better-seeing eye and NEIVFQ composite total score is shown in Figure 15;© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2012. This work was produced by Reeves et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by theSecretary of State for Health.
Page 5 and 6:
DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 12 and 13:
xExecutive summaryretreat on criter
Page 14 and 15:
xiiExecutive summaryof data, with i
Page 16 and 17:
2 Introductionon-going or new clini
Page 18 and 19:
4 Introductionof VPDT in routine cl
Page 21 and 22: DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 31: DOI: 10.3310/hta16060Health Technol
Page 34 and 35: 20 Key changes to the protocolThese
Page 36 and 37: 22 Key changes to the protocolCentr
Page 38 and 39: 24 Key changes to the protocolADVER
Page 40 and 41: 26 Key changes to the protocolPlan
Page 42 and 43: 28 Key changes to the protocolClass
Page 44 and 45: 30 Key changes to the protocolFor i
Page 46 and 47: 32 Key changes to the protocolIn ad
Page 48 and 49: 34 Key changes to the protocolsites
Page 52 and 53: 38 Results (1) - study cohortTABLE
Page 60 and 61: 46 Results (2) - objectives A, B, C
Page 80 and 81: 66 Discussion of resultsStrengths a
Page 82 and 83: 68 Discussion of resultsThe VPDT st
Page 84 and 85: 70 Discussion of resultsOur analyse
Page 86 and 87: 72 Discussion of resultsA further c
Page 88 and 89: 74 Discussion of resultsVPDT. It is
Page 98 and 99: 84 References16. Stelmack J. Qualit
Page 100 and 101: 86 References49. Guymer RH, Chiu AW
Page 102 and 103: 88 References83. Margrain TH. Minim
Page 104 and 105: 90 Appendix 1THE VERTEPORFIN PHOTOD
Page 106 and 107: 92 Appendix 11. Overview of Manual
Page 108 and 109: 94 Appendix 1And, if also collectin
Page 110 and 111: 96 Appendix 1more patients in the v
Page 112 and 113: 98 Appendix 12.4 Limitations of the
Page 114 and 115: 100 Appendix 1Box 2 Key advantages
Page 116 and 117: 102 Appendix 14. Study population4.
Page 118 and 119: 104 Appendix 15. Recruitment to the
Page 120 and 121:
106 Appendix 16. Background data co
Page 122 and 123:
108 Appendix 1Table 1: Schedule of
Page 124 and 125:
110 Appendix 1The Verteporfin Photo
Page 126 and 127:
112 Appendix 1• Additional clinic
Page 128 and 129:
114 Appendix 18. Recording adverse
Page 130 and 131:
116 Appendix 1level of benefit from
Page 132 and 133:
118 Appendix 1• comparison of num
Page 134 and 135:
120 Appendix 110.6 Sub-group analys
Page 136 and 137:
122 Appendix 112. Data issues12.1 D
Page 138 and 139:
124 Appendix 113. Organisation13.1
Page 140 and 141:
126 Appendix 114. References[1] Ref
Page 142 and 143:
128 Appendix 1Barnes RM, Gee L, Tay
Page 144 and 145:
130 Appendix 1Appendix 1: Classifyi
Page 146 and 147:
132 Appendix 1Liverpool re-treatmen
Page 148 and 149:
134 Appendix 1Service StructurePlea
Page 150 and 151:
136 Appendix 1Has your photographer
Page 152 and 153:
138 Appendix 1There are many differ
Page 154 and 155:
140 Appendix 1testing on vision tes
Page 156 and 157:
142 Appendix 1something to do with
Page 158 and 159:
144 Appendix 1College of Ophthalmol
Page 160 and 161:
146 Appendix 1Appendix 5:Protocol f
Page 162 and 163:
148 Appendix 16.2 Subjective Refrac
Page 164 and 165:
150 Appendix 1• The patient shoul
Page 166 and 167:
152 Appendix 1Appendix 6:Protocol f
Page 168 and 169:
154 Appendix 18. It is customary to
Page 170 and 171:
156 Appendix 1Early or Transit Phas
Page 172 and 173:
158 Appendix 1
Page 174 and 175:
160 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 176 and 177:
162 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 178 and 179:
164 Appendix 1---------------------
Page 180 and 181:
166 Appendix 1Appendix 9:Site imple
Page 182 and 183:
168 Appendix 1Option 2 - units inte
Page 184 and 185:
170 Appendix 1Dos and Don’tsDosDo
Page 186 and 187:
172 Appendix 1Resource use question
Page 188 and 189:
174 Appendix 1Appendix 11: Recommen
Page 190 and 191:
176 Appendix 1ADVERSE REACTION AND
Page 192 and 193:
178 Appendix 1acute Trust; note tha
Page 194 and 195:
180 Appendix 1Ophthalmologistrespon
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203:
Page 206 and 207:
192 Appendix 3manufacturer’s pers
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 216:
FeedbackThe HTA programme and the a
show all

Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?