Supplementary tables: Systematic literature review of evidence in amyloid light-chain amyloidosis

dataset

posted on 2024-05-03, 08:42 authored by Charlene Lee, Annette Lam, Teresa Kangappaden, Pyper Olver, Sarah Kane, Diana Tran, Eric Ammann

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Systematic literature review of evidence in amyloid light-chain amyloidosis' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Table S1: Clinical evidence literature search: inclusion/exclusion criteria
Table S2: HRQoL evidence literature search: inclusion/exclusion criteria
Table S3: Economic evidence literature search: inclusion/exclusion criteria
Table S4: Resource use/indirect costs evidence literature search: inclusion/exclusion criteria
Table S5: Search strategy for clinical evidence review: MEDLINE and EMBASE
Table S6: Search strategy for clinical evidence review: Cochrane Library (Ovid)
Table S7: Search strategy for the health-related quality of life evidence review
Table S8: Search strategy for economic evidence review
Table S9: Search strategy for resource use and indirect costs evidence review
Table S10: Risk of bias assessment of randomized controlled trials
Table S11: Risk of bias assessment across observational studies (case-control studies)
Table S12: Risk of bias assessment across observational studies (cohort studies)
Table S13: Risk of bias assessment across HRQoL studies

Introduction: Treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, a rare disease with a <5-year lifespan, remains challenging. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to evaluate the current evidence base in AL amyloidosis. Methods: Literature searches on clinical, health-related quality of life, economic and resource use evidence were conducted using the Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases as well as gray literature. Results: This SLR yielded 84 unique studies from: five randomized controlled trials; 54 observational studies; 12 health-related quality of life studies, none with utility values; no economic evaluation studies; and 16 resource use studies, none with indirect costs. Conclusion: This SLR highlights a paucity of published literature relating to randomized controlled trials, utility values, economic evaluations and indirect costs in AL amyloidosis.