Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting

Interpretation of trial-based economic evaluations of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

BACKGROUND

As resources for healthcare are scarce, decision-makers increasingly rely on economic evaluations when making reimbursement decisions about new health technologies, such as drugs, procedures, devices, and equipment. Economic evaluations compare the costs and effects of two or more interventions. Musculoskeletal disorders have a high prevalence and result in high levels of disability and high costs worldwide. Because physical therapy interventions are usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders, economic evaluations of such interventions are becoming increasingly important for stakeholders in the field of physical therapy, including physical therapists, decision-makers, and reseachers. However, economic evaluations are relatively difficult to interpret for the majority of stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To support physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy interpreting trial-based economic evaluations and translating the results of such studies to clinical practice.

METHODS

The design, analysis, and interpretation of economic evaluations performed alongside randomized controlled trials are discussed. To further illustrate and explain these concepts, we use a case study assessing the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to standard advice in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations are increasingly being used in healthcare decision-making. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that their design, conduct, and analysis are state-of-the-art and that their interpretation is adequate. This masterclass will help physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy to critically appraise the quality and results of trial-based economic evaluations and to apply the results of such studies to their own clinical practice and setting.

The statistical approach in trial-based economic evaluations matters: get your statistics together!

Background

Baseline imbalances, skewed costs, the correlation between costs and effects, and missing data are statistical challenges that are often not adequately accounted for in the analysis of cost-effectiveness data. This study aims to illustrate the impact of accounting for these statistical challenges in trial-based economic evaluations.

Methods

Data from two trial-based economic evaluations, the REALISE and HypoAware studies, were used. In total, 14 full cost-effectiveness analyses were performed per study, in which the four statistical challenges in trial-based economic evaluations were taken into account step-by-step. Statistical approaches were compared in terms of the resulting cost and effect differences, ICERs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness.

Results

In the REALISE study and HypoAware study, the ICER ranged from 636,744€/QALY and 90,989€/QALY when ignoring all statistical challenges to − 7502€/QALY and 46,592€/QALY when accounting for all statistical challenges, respectively. The probabilities of the intervention being cost-effective at 0€/ QALY gained were 0.67 and 0.59 when ignoring all statistical challenges, and 0.54 and 0.27 when all of the statistical challenges were taken into account for the REALISE study and HypoAware study, respectively.

Conclusions

Not accounting for baseline imbalances, skewed costs, correlated costs and effects, and missing data in trial-based economic evaluations may notably impact results. Therefore, when conducting trial-based economic evaluations, it is important to align the statistical approach with the identified statistical challenges in cost-effectiveness data. To facilitate researchers in handling statistical challenges in trial-based economic evaluations, software code is provided.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06513-1.

Multivariate Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models for the Analysis of Clinical Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Data

Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials are a popular vehicle for generating high-quality evidence on the incremental cost-effectiveness of competing health care interventions. Typically, in these studies, resource use (and by extension, economic costs) and clinical (or preference-based health) outcomes data are collected prospectively for trial participants to estimate the joint distribution of incremental costs and incremental benefits associated with the intervention. In this article, we extend the generalized linear mixed-model framework to enable simultaneous modeling of multiple outcomes of mixed data types, such as those typically encountered in trial-based economic evaluations, taking into account correlation of outcomes due to repeated measurements on the same individual and other clustering effects. We provide new wrapper functions to estimate the models in Stata and R by maximum and restricted maximum quasi-likelihood and compare the performance of the new routines with alternative implementations across a range of statistical programming packages. Empirical applications using observed and simulated data from clinical trials suggest that the new methods produce broadly similar results as compared with Stata’s merlin and gsem commands and a Bayesian implementation in WinBUGS. We highlight that, although these empirical applications primarily focus on trial-based economic evaluations, the new methods presented can be generalized to other health economic investigations characterized by multivariate hierarchical data structures.

Cost-effectiveness in surgery: concepts of cost-utility analysis explained

Economic evaluations are increasingly becoming part of the surgical evidence base. With health and research guidelines emphasizing both clinical and economic benefits, surgeons will need to consider the impact of economic evaluations in the future. It seems reasonable that surgical costs in the public healthcare sector should be justified by the benefits that clinical interventions offer. Thus, it is vital to understand the methodological differences, reported outcomes and limitations of economic evaluations pertinent to surgical practice as well. As terminology and concepts can be unfamiliar to surgeons, understanding results from these studies can seem difficult. This article aims to inform surgical readers of the processes involved in performing economic evaluations to determine and compare the cost-effectiveness of treatments. The various types of economic evaluations, their uses, design characteristics, model parameters, interpretation of outputs, uncertainty analyses and notable limitations are considered. Through a hypothetical clinical example that compares costs and effects of surgical versus medical treatment for cancer, key concepts in economic evaluations are considered.

Recommendations for Reporting on Rehabilitation Interventions

ABSTRACT

Clear reporting on rehabilitation treatments is critical for interpreting and replicating study results and for translating treatment research into clinical practice. This article reports the recommendations of a working group on improved reporting on rehabilitation treatments. These recommendations are intended to be combined with the efforts of other working groups, through a consensus process, to arrive at a reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials in physical medicine and rehabilitation (Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist). The work group conducted a scoping review of 156 diverse guidelines for randomized controlled trial reporting, to identify themes that might be usefully applied to the field of rehabilitation. Themes were developed by identifying content that might improve or enhance existing items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Guidelines addressing broad research domains tended to define reporting items generally, from the investigator's perspective of relevance, whereas those addressing more circumscribed domains provided more specific and operationalized items. Rehabilitation is a diverse field, but a clear description of the treatment's separable components, along with distinct treatment theories for each, can improve reporting of relevant information. Over time, expert consensus groups should develop more specific guideline extensions for circumscribed research domains, around coalescing bodies of treatment theory.

Modelling in economic evaluations of medicines

Economic evaluation in health (also known as pharmacoeconomic in case of medicines) identifies, measures, and values costs and outcomes of alternative healthcare technologies, and can be performed alongside controlled clinical trials, but analytical modelling is usually used. Decision trees and Markov models are the two most common approaches used in economic evaluation. The biggest advantages of a decision tree are clarity, simplicity, and straightforwardness. On the other hand, the main advantage of the Markov model is its ability to incorporate complex events into the simulation, which is practically impossible to do with a decision tree. Reimbursement policy in Serbia mandatorily incorporates economic evaluations to promote availability and accessibility of the prescription medicines. To show current pharmacoeconomic value of a medicine, budget impact analysis and the cost-effectiveness analysis should be included. The latter should be conducted using appropriate modelling techniques. However, since no official methodological guidelines about the modelling and economic analysis exist, the submissions by marketing authorization holders vary greatly. The future of pharmacoeconomic modelling depends on the research area of interest, with new frameworks and approaches being developed.

Impact of home-based palliative care on health care costs and hospital use: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of home-based palliative care (HBPC) on reducing hospital visits and whether HBPC lowered health care cost.

METHOD

We searched six bibliographic databases (Embase (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Medline (Ovid); PubMed; Web of Science Core Collection; and, CINAHL) until February 2019 and performed a narrative synthesis of our findings.

RESULTS

Of the 1,426 identified references, 21 articles based on 19 unique studies met our inclusion criteria, which involved 92,000 participants. In both oncological and non-oncological patients, HBPC consistently reduced the number of hospital visits and their length, as well as hospitalization costs and overall health care costs. Even though home-treated patients consumed more outpatient resources, a higher saving in the hospital costs counterbalanced this. The reduction in overall health care costs was most noticeable for study periods closer to death, with greater reductions in the last 2 months, last month, and last two weeks of life.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Stakeholders should recognize HBPC as an intervention that decreases patient care costs at end of life and therefore health care providers should assess the preferences of patients nearing the end-of-life to identify those who will benefit most from HBPC.

How Are We Measuring Cost-Effectiveness in Total Joint Arthroplasty Studies? Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

As volumes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to rise, it is important to understand their economic impact. No systematic review on cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA has been performed since 2016 despite recent changes in the healthcare environment. The purpose of the study is to provide a contemporary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty and the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed from 2005 to 2020. Online databases (OVID Medline, PubMed, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Google Scholar, Elton B. Stephens Co) were queried to identify economic analyses that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies met the screening criteria. Study designs were primarily Markov models (68%), cohort studies (16%), and randomized trials (8%). Most studies adopted either a societal perspective (45%) or a health system perspective (39%). Analysis revealed that THA/TKA was strongly cost-effective compared to nonsurgical treatment. THA/TKA procedures that were not delayed were more cost-effective than delayed intervention. The majority of studies used QALYs as the primary quality metric (82%); in all these studies there was a significant improvement in QALYs gained.

CONCLUSION

Given the high economic impact of arthroplasty, ongoing assessment of cost-effectiveness is needed. Twenty-four percent of studies included in this systematic review were published in the last 4 years of this 15-year study period, highlighting the need for continuous assessment of aggregate data. Future studies should incorporate the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA with respect to the work-value provided by surgeon providers to support health policy and reimbursement.

Taking the Analysis of Trial-Based Economic Evaluations to the Next Level: The Importance of Accounting for Clustering

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the performance and impact of multilevel modelling (MLM) compared with ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in trial-based economic evaluations with clustered data.

METHODS

Three thousand datasets with balanced and unbalanced clusters were simulated with correlation coefficients between costs and effects of - 0.5, 0, and 0.5, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) varying between 0.05 and 0.30. Each scenario was analyzed using both MLM and OLS. Statistical uncertainty around MLM and OLS estimates was estimated using bootstrapping. Performance measures were estimated and compared between approaches, including bias, root mean squared error (RMSE) and coverage probability. Cost and effect differences, and their corresponding confidence intervals and standard errors, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental net-monetary benefits and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were compared.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness outcomes were similar between OLS and MLM. MLM produced larger statistical uncertainty and coverage probabilities closer to nominal levels than OLS. The higher the ICC, the larger the effect on statistical uncertainty between MLM and OLS. Significant cost-effectiveness outcomes as estimated by OLS became non-significant when estimated by MLM. At all ICCs, MLM resulted in lower probabilities of cost effectiveness than OLS, and this difference became larger with increasing ICCs. Performance measures and cost-effectiveness outcomes were similar across scenarios with varying correlation coefficients between costs and effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Although OLS produced similar cost-effectiveness outcomes, it substantially underestimated the amount of variation in the data compared with MLM. To prevent suboptimal conclusions and a possible waste of scarce resources, it is important to use MLM in trial-based economic evaluations when data are clustered.

Economics of Cervical Disc Replacement

BACKGROUND

Although extensive reports of clinical outcome after cervical disc replacement (CDR) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion exist, few reviews of the cost-effectiveness research in cervical spine surgery exist. The purpose of this study was to review the concepts of cost-effectiveness research, the various approaches to cost-effectiveness studies in the context of cervical spine surgery, and some of the literature results.

METHODS

Review article describing cost-effectiveness research concepts, methodology, and results. The article reviews the concept of value, cost, utility, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and recent research.

RESULTS

Mixed data on cost-effectiveness of CDR compared with fusion exist. Notably, several studies performed within the last 5 years that use prospectively collected utility scores, costs, and adverse event calculations demonstrate a significant cost savings associated with CDR compared with fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The recent literature confirms that, in properly selected patients, CDR is more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease. The primary driver of the differential in cost effectiveness is the difference in secondary surgery rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In properly selected patients, CDR is more effective and less costly over a 7-year time horizon for patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease.

Enhanced Recovery after Intensive Care (ERIC): study protocol for a German stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a critical care telehealth program on process quality and functional outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Survival after critical illness has noticeably improved over the last decades due to advances in critical care medicine. Besides, there is an increasing number of elderly patients with chronic diseases being treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). More than half of the survivors of critical illness suffer from medium-term or long-term cognitive, psychological and/or physical impairments after ICU discharge, which is recognised as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). There are evidence-based and consensus-based quality indicators (QIs) in intensive care medicine, which have a positive influence on patients' long-term outcomes if adhered to.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol of a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled, quality improvement trial is presented. During 3 predefined steps, 12 academic hospitals in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany, are randomly selected to move in a one-way crossover from the control to the intervention condition. After a multifactorial training programme on QIs and clinical outcomes for site personnel, ICUs will receive an adapted, interprofessional protocol for a complex telehealth intervention comprising of daily telemedical rounds at ICU. The targeted sample size is 1431 patients. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention on the adherence to eight QIs daily measured during the patient's ICU stay, compared with standard of care. Furthermore, the impact on long-term recovery such as PICS-related, patient-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, mental health, clinical assessments of cognition and physical function, all-cause mortality and cost-effectiveness 3 and 6 months after ICU discharge will be evaluated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany (EA1/006/18). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (www.eric-projekt.net).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03671447).

The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol

INTRODUCTION

Renal stones are common, with a lifetime prevalence of 10% in adults. Global incidence is increasing due to increases in obesity and diabetes, with these patient populations being more likely to suffer renal stone disease. Flank pain from stones (renal colic) is the most common cause of emergency admission to UK urology departments. Stones most commonly develop in the lower pole of the kidney (in ~35% of cases) and here are least likely to pass without intervention. Currently there are three technologies available within the UK National Health Service to remove lower pole kidney stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) with laser lithotripsy. Current evidence indicates there is uncertainty regarding the management of lower pole stones, and each treatment has advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this trial is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of FURS compared with ESWL or PCNL in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones.

METHODS

The PUrE (PCNL, FURS and ESWL for lower pole kidney stones) trial is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating FURS versus ESWL or PCNL for lower pole kidney stones. Patients aged ≥16 years with a stone(s) in the lower pole of either kidney confirmed by non-contrast computed tomography of the kidney, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) and requiring treatment for a stone ≤10 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or ESWL (RCT1), and those requiring treatment for a stone >10 mm to ≤25 mm will be randomised to receive FURS or PCNL (RCT2). Participants will undergo follow-up by questionnaires every week up to 12 weeks post-intervention and at 12 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is health status measured by the area under the curve calculated from multiple measurements of the EuroQol five dimensions five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire up to 12 weeks post-intervention. The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 12 months post-randomisation.

DISCUSSION

The PUrE trial aims to provide robust evidence on health status, quality of life, clinical outcomes and resource use to directly inform choice and National Health Service provision of the three treatment options.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: ISRCTN98970319. Registered on 11 November 2015.

The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial: statistical and health economic analysis plan for an equivalence randomized controlled trial of treatment for torus fractures of the distal radius in children

AIMS

Torus fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures in children. The NICE non-complex fracture guidelines recently concluded that bandaging was probably the optimal treatment for these injuries. However, across the UK current treatment varies widely due to a lack of evidence underpinning the guidelines. The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial evaluates the effect of a soft bandage and immediate discharge compared with rigid immobilization.

METHODS

FORCE is a multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled equivalence trial. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain score at three days after randomization and the primary analysis of this outcome will use a multivariate linear regression model to compare the two groups. Secondary outcomes are measured at one and seven days, and three and six-weeks post-randomization and include the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity limb score, EuroQoL EQ-5D-Y, analgesia use, school absence, complications, and healthcare resource use. The planned statistical and health economic analyses for this trial are described here. The FORCE trial protocol has been published separately.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides details of the planned analyses for this trial, and will reduce the risks of outcome reporting bias and data driven results.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:205-213.

The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial: statistical and health economic analysis plan for an equivalence randomized controlled trial of treatment for torus fractures of the distal radius in children

Aims

Torus fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures in children. The NICE non-complex fracture guidelines recently concluded that bandaging was probably the optimal treatment for these injuries. However, across the UK current treatment varies widely due to a lack of evidence underpinning the guidelines. The Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial evaluates the effect of a soft bandage and immediate discharge compared with rigid immobilization.

Methods

FORCE is a multicentre, parallel group randomized controlled equivalence trial. The primary outcome is the Wong-Baker FACES pain score at three days after randomization and the primary analysis of this outcome will use a multivariate linear regression model to compare the two groups. Secondary outcomes are measured at one and seven days, and three and six-weeks post-randomization and include the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity limb score, EuroQoL EQ-5D-Y, analgesia use, school absence, complications, and healthcare resource use. The planned statistical and health economic analyses for this trial are described here. The FORCE trial protocol has been published separately.

Conclusion

This paper provides details of the planned analyses for this trial, and will reduce the risks of outcome reporting bias and data driven results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:205–213.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

With increasing healthcare costs and the emergence of new technologies in vascular surgery, economic evaluations play a critical role in informing decision-making that optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing per capita costs. The objective of this systematic review is to describe all English published economic evaluations in vascular surgery and to identify any significant gaps in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive English literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from inception until December 1, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility using predetermined inclusion criteria and subsequently extracted data. Articles were included if they compared 2 or more vascular surgery interventions using either a partial economic evaluation (cost analysis) or full economic evaluation (cost-utility, cost-benefit, and/or cost-effectiveness analysis). Data extracted included publishing journal, date of publication, country of origin of authors, type of economic evaluation, and domain of vascular surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 234 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of the papers included only a cost analysis (183, 78%), and there were only 51 papers that conducted a full economic analysis (22%). The 51 papers conducted a total of 69 economic analyses. This consisted of 32 cost-effectiveness analyses, 29 cost-utility analyses, and 8 cost-benefit analyses. The most common domains studied were aneurysmal disease (89, 38%) and peripheral vascular disease (50, 21%). Economic evaluations were commonly published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (83, 35%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (32, 14%), with most study authors located in the United States (127, 54%). There was a trend of economic evaluations being published more frequently in recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of vascular surgery economic evaluations used only a cost analysis, rather than a full economic evaluation, which may not be ideal in pursuing interventions that simultaneously optimize cost and patient outcomes. The literature is lacking in full economic evaluations-a trend persistent in other surgical specialties-and there is a need for full economic evaluations to be conducted in the field of vascular surgery.

Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa

BACKGROUND

While dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal.

METHODS

We used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis.

RESULTS

In each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: - 0.138 to 0.023 and - 0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a ≥ 95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Using TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of topical 5-fluorouracil vs. imiquimod vs. ingenol mebutate vs. methyl aminolaevulinate conventional photodynamic therapy for the treatment of actinic keratosis in the head and neck area performed in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common premalignant skin condition that might have the ability to progress into squamous cell carcinoma. Due to the high incidence of AK, treatment of this disease significantly impacts healthcare spending.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which commonly prescribed field-directed treatment is the most cost-effective, when comparing 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 5%, imiquimod (IMQ) 5%, ingenol mebutate (IM) 0·015% and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for AK in the head and neck region.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a single-blinded, prospective, multicentre randomized controlled trial with 624 participants in the Netherlands. The outcome measure was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the incremental costs per additional patient with ≥ 75% lesion reduction compared with baseline. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281682.

RESULTS

The trial showed that 5-FU was the most effective field treatment for AK in the head and neck region. Twelve months post-treatment, the total mean costs for 5-FU were significantly lower (€433) than the €728, €775 and €1621 for IMQ, IM and MAL-PDT, respectively. The results showed that 5-FU was a dominant cost-effective treatment (more effective and less expensive) compared with the other treatments, 12 months post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, we consider 5-FU 5% cream as the first-choice treatment option for multiple AKs in the head and neck area. What's already known about this topic? Due to the increasing incidence of actinic keratosis (AK), the recommended treatment results in a considerable socioeconomic burden for (dermatological) healthcare. Although cost-effectiveness modelling studies have been performed in which different treatments for AK were compared, a prospective clinical trial comparing four frequently prescribed treatments on effectiveness and resource consumption within a time horizon of 12 months has never been conducted. What does this study add? This is the first study examining the cost-effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil 5% cream, imiquimod 5% cream, ingenol mebutate 0·015% gel and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy, with data collected in a randomized controlled trial over a time horizon of 12 months. We found that 5-fluorouracil was a dominant cost-effective treatment (more effective and less costly), based on data from the Netherlands. Linked Comment: Steeb et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:612.

General medical services by non-medical health professionals: a systematic quantitative review of economic evaluations in primary care

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have found that nurses and pharmacists can provide equivalent, or higher, quality of care for some tasks performed by GPs in primary care. There is a lack of economic evidence for this substitution.

AIM

To explore the costs and outcomes of role substitution between GPs and nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review of economic evaluations exploring role substitution of allied health professionals in primary care was conducted. Role substitution was defined as 'the substitution of work that was previously completed by a GP in the past and is now completed by a nurse or allied health professional'.

METHOD

The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The review followed guidance from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

Six economic evaluations were identified. There was some limited evidence that nurse-led care for common minor health problems was cost-effective compared with GP care, and that nurse-led interventions for chronic fatigue syndrome and pharmacy-led services for the medicines management of coronary heart disease and chronic pain were not. In South Korea, community health practitioners delivered primary care services for half the cost of physicians. The review did not identify studies for other allied health professionals such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

CONCLUSION

There is limited economic evidence for role substitution in primary care; more economic evaluations are needed.

A randomised controlled trial of treatments of childhood anxiety disorder in the context of maternal anxiety disorder: clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated whether clinical and economic outcomes from CBT for child anxiety disorders in the context of maternal anxiety disorders are improved by adding treatment focused on (a) maternal anxiety disorders or (b) mother-child interactions.

METHODS

Two hundred and eleven children (7-12 years, 85% White British, 52% female) with a primary anxiety disorder, whose mothers also had a current anxiety disorder, were randomised to receive (a) child-focused CBT with nonspecific control interventions (CCBT+Con), (b) CCBT with CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder (CCBT+MCBT), or (c) CCBT with an intervention targeting the mother-child interaction (CCBT+MCI). A cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective was conducted using mother/child combined quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). [Trial registration: https://doi.org/10.1186/isrctn19762288].

RESULTS

MCBT was associated with immediate reductions in maternal anxiety compared to the nonspecific control; however, after children had also received CCBT, maternal outcomes in the CCBT+MCI and CCBT+Con arms improved and CCBT+MCBT was no longer superior. Neither CCBT+MCBT nor CCBT+MCI conferred a benefit over CCBT+Con in terms of child anxiety disorder diagnoses post-treatment [primary outcome] (adj RR: 1.22 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.67), p = .23; adj RR: 1.21 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.65), p = .24, respectively) or global improvement ratings (adj RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.57), p = .06; adj RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.50), p = .17) or six and 12 months later. No significant differences between the groups were found on the main economic outcome measures (child/mother combined QALY mean difference: CCBT+MCBT vs. CCBT+Con: -0.04 (95% CI: -0.12, 0.04), p = .29; CCBT+MCI vs. CCBT+Con: 0.02 (95% CI: -0.05, -0.09), p = .54). CCBT+MCI was associated with nonsignificantly higher costs than CCBT (mean difference: £154 (95% CI: -£1,239, £1,547), p = .83) but, when taking into account sampling uncertainty, it may be cost-effective compared with CCBT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Good outcomes were achieved for children and their mothers across treatment arms. There was no evidence of significant clinical benefit from supplementing CCBT with either CBT for the maternal anxiety disorder or treatment focussed on mother-child interactions, but the addition of MCI (and not MCBT) may be cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial.

METHODS

DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in €, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis considering 2009-2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were - €3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 5202 to - 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595.

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations.

DESIGN

An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial.

SETTING

A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum.

INTERVENTIONS

The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient.

RESULTS

Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY).

RESULTS

Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points).

CONCLUSION

The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

What do national pharmacoeconomic guidelines recommend regarding the statistical analysis of trial-based economic evaluations?

Introduction: The statistical quality of many trial-based economic evaluations is poor. When conducting trial-based economic evaluations, researchers often turn to national pharmacoeconomic guidelines for guidance. Therefore, this study reviewed which recommendations are currently given by national pharmacoeconomic guidelines on the statistical analysis of trial-based economic evaluations.Areas covered: 40 national pharmacoeconomic guidelines were identified. Data were extracted on the guidelines' recommendations on how to deal with baseline imbalances, skewed costs, correlated costs and effects, clustering of data, longitudinal data, and missing data in trial-based economic evaluations. Four guidelines (10%) were found to include recommendations on how to deal with baseline imbalances, five (13%) on how to deal with skewed costs, and seven (18%) on how to deal with missing data. Recommendations were very general in nature and recommendations on dealing with correlated costs and effects, clustering of data, and longitudinal data were lacking.Expert opinion: Current national pharmacoeconomic guidelines provide little to no guidance on how to deal with the statistical challenges to trial-based economic evaluations. Since the use of suboptimal statistical methods may lead to biased results, and, therefore, possibly to a waste of scarce resources, national agencies are advised to include more statistical guidance in their pharmacoeconomic guidelines.

Contributing to Global Health: Development of a Consensus-Based Whole Systems Research Strategy for Anthroposophic Medicine

Background

Whole medicine and health systems like traditional and complementary medicine systems (T&CM) are part of healthcare around the world. One key feature of T&CM is its focus on patient-centered and multimodal care and the integration of intercultural perspectives in a wide range of settings. It may contribute to good health and well being for people as part of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The authentic, rigorous, and fair evaluation of such a medical system, with its inherent complexity and individualization, imposes methodological challenges. Hence, we propose a broad research strategy to test and characterize its possible contribution to health.

Methods

To develop a research strategy for a specific T&CM system, Anthroposophic Medicine (AM), applying multimodal integrative healthcare based on a four-level concept of man, we used a three-phase consensus process with experts and key stakeholders, consisting of (1) premeeting methodological literature and AM research review and interviews to supplement or revise items of the research strategy and tailor them to AM research, (2) face-to-face consensus meetings further developing and tailoring the strategy, and (3) postmeeting feedback and review, followed by finalization.

Results

Currently, AM covers many fields of medical specialties in varied levels of healthcare settings, such as outpatient and inpatient; primary, secondary, and tertiary care; and health education and pedagogy. It is by definition integrated with conventional medicine in the public healthcare system. It applies specific medicines, nursing techniques, arts therapies, eurythmy therapy, rhythmical massage, counseling, and psychotherapy, and it is provided by medical doctors, nurses, therapists, midwives, and nutritionists. A research strategy authentic to this level of complexity should comprise items with a focus on (I) efficacy and effectiveness, divided into (a) evaluation of the multimodal and multidisciplinary medical system as a whole, or of complex multimodal therapy concept, (b) a reasonable amount of methodologically rigorous, confirmatory randomized controlled trials on exemplary pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies and indications, (c) a wide range of interventions and patient-centered care strategies with less extensive formats like well-conducted small trails, observational studies, and high-quality case reports and series, or subgroup analyses from whole-system studies, or health service research; (II) safety; (III) economics; (IV) evidence synthesis; (V) methodologic issues; (VI) biomedical, physiological, pharmacological, pharmaceutical, psychological, anthropological, and nosological issues as well as innovation and development; (VI) patient perspective and involvement, public needs, and ethics; (VII) educational matters and professionalism; and (IX) disease prevention, health promotion, and public health.

Conclusion

The research strategy extends to and complements the prevailing hierarchical system by introducing a broad “evidence house” approach to evaluation, something many health technology assessment boards today support. It may provide transparent and comprehensive insight into potential benefits or risks of AM. It can serve as a framework for an evidence-informed approach to AM for a variety of stakeholders and collaborating networks with the aim of improving global health.

An overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy-based public health interventions: addressing methodological challenges

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy interventions are a subset of public health interventions and its research is usually performed within the scope of a trial. The economic evaluation of pharmacy interventions requires certain considerations which have some similarities to those of public health interventions and to economic evaluations alongside trials. The objective of this research is to perform an overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy services and triangulate results with recommendations for economic evaluations of both public health interventions and alongside trials.

METHODS

(1) Exploratory review of recommendations on the economic evaluation of public health interventions, (2) exploratory review of recommendations for conducting economic evaluations alongside trials, (3) overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy interventions (protocol registered with PROSPERO 2016 outlining information sources, inclusion criteria, appraisal of reviews and synthesis methods).

RESULTS

Fourteen systematic reviews containing 75 index publications were included. Reviews reported favorable economic findings for 71% of studies with full economic evaluations. The types of economic analysis are diverse. Two critical quality domains are absent from most reviews. Key findings include the following: certain types of risk of bias, wider scope of study designs, and most economic quality criteria met but some issues unresolved or unclear. Triangulation revealed additional gaps. Limitations include choice of critical quality domains and potential biases in the overview process.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of pharmacy-based public health interventions seem to follow most economic quality criteria, but there are still some issues in certain key areas to improve. These findings may assist in improving the design of pilot trials of economic evaluations in pharmacy, leading to robust evidence for payers. Based on the findings, we propose a methodological approach for the economic evaluation of pharmacy-based public health interventions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016032768.

A Systematic Review of Productivity in Economic Evaluations of Workplace Interventions: A Need for Reporting Criteria?

BACKGROUND

Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are understood to reduce levels of paid productivity. Productivity, including absenteeism and presenteeism, is arguably an important factor for consideration in economic evaluations of workplace interventions for RMDs (WPI-RMDs). Existing methods available to quantify and value absenteeism and presenteeism are heterogeneous and produce estimates that vary substantially across studies. To date, there has been no systematic summary of the reporting quality of methods used to quantify paid productivity included in economic evaluations of WPI-RMDs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was twofold. First, the review was conducted to understand if, and how, the impact of WPI-RMDs on productivity was considered and incorporated in published economic evaluations. Second, we aimed to assess the reporting quality of productivity in published economic evaluations of WPI-RMDs and determine the need for a published set of reporting guidelines for productivity.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic review published in 2008 that focused on the cost effectiveness of WPIs, with limited information on productivity, was updated from 2007 to July 2018. A global search was conducted using three online databases: MEDLINE (1946 to August 2018, week 2), EMBASE (1974 to 10 July 2018); and EconLit (1886 to July 2018). The studies were double-screened by four independent reviewers. Data extraction was conducted using a bespoke data extraction table.

RESULTS

Twenty-one economic evaluations of WPI-RMDs were identified. All studies evaluated absenteeism, but only five reported on levels of presenteeism. The methods used to identify and measure absenteeism were fairly consistent; however, methods used to identify and measure presenteeism, and value absenteeism and presenteeism, varied across studies. Two studies may have potentially double-counted productivity in their economic evaluations of WPI-RMDs. The results of this systematic review identified key elements potentially useful as a starting point to inform reporting quality guidelines for productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in the methods used to quantify productivity and how it is reported in economic evaluations suggests the need for specific published reporting guidelines for productivity. The development of standardised reporting guidelines for the identification, measurement, and valuation of absenteeism and presenteeism in economic evaluations may help reduce variation in the methods and promote transparency.

Developing routinely recorded clinical data from electronic patient records as a national resource to improve neonatal health care: the Medicines for Neonates research programme

Background

Clinical data offer the potential to advance patient care. Neonatal specialised care is a high-cost NHS service received by approximately 80,000 newborn infants each year.

Objectives

(1) To develop the use of routinely recorded operational clinical data from electronic patient records (EPRs), secure national coverage, evaluate and improve the quality of clinical data, and develop their use as a national resource to improve neonatal health care and outcomes. To test the hypotheses that (2) clinical and research data are of comparable quality, (3) routine NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years reliably identifies children with neurodevelopmental impairment and (4) trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be reliably conducted using clinical data. (5) To test methods to link NHS data sets and (6) to evaluate parent views of personal data in research.

Design

Six inter-related workstreams; quarterly extractions of predefined data from neonatal EPRs; and approvals from the National Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group, Caldicott Guardians and lead neonatal clinicians of participating NHS trusts.

Setting

NHS neonatal units.

Participants

Neonatal clinical teams; parents of babies admitted to NHS neonatal units.

Interventions

In workstream 3, we employed the Bayley-III scales to evaluate neurodevelopmental status and the Quantitative Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) to evaluate social communication skills. In workstream 6, we recruited parents with previous experience of a child in neonatal care to assist in the design of a questionnaire directed at the parents of infants admitted to neonatal units.

Data sources

Data were extracted from the EPR of admissions to NHS neonatal units.

Main outcome measures

We created a National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) containing a defined extract from real-time, point-of-care, clinician-entered EPRs from all NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland (n = 200), established a UK Neonatal Collaborative of all NHS trusts providing neonatal specialised care, and created a new NHS information standard: the Neonatal Data Set (ISB 1595) (see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1595/amd-32–2012/index_html; accessed 25 June 2018).

Results

We found low discordance between clinical (NNRD) and research data for most important infant and maternal characteristics, and higher prevalence of clinical outcomes. Compared with research assessments, NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years has lower sensitivity but higher specificity for identifying children with neurodevelopmental impairment. Completeness and quality are higher for clinical than for administrative NHS data; linkage is feasible and substantially enhances data quality and scope. The majority of hospital resource inputs for economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be extracted reliably from the NNRD. In general, there is strong parent support for sharing routine clinical data for research purposes.

Limitations

We were only able to include data from all English neonatal units from 2012 onwards and conduct only limited cross validation of NNRD data directly against data in paper case notes. We were unable to conduct qualitative analyses of parent perspectives. We were also only able to assess the utility of trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions using a single trial. We suggest that results should be validated against other trials.

Conclusions

We show that it is possible to obtain research-standard data from neonatal EPRs, and achieve complete population coverage, but we highlight the importance of implementing systematic examination of NHS data quality and completeness and testing methods to improve these measures. Currently available EPR data do not enable ascertainment of neurodevelopmental outcomes reliably in very preterm infants. Measures to maintain high quality and completeness of clinical and administrative data are important health service goals. As parent support for sharing clinical data for research is underpinned by strong altruistic motivation, improving wider public understanding of benefits may enhance informed decision-making.

Future work

We aim to implement a new paradigm for newborn health care in which continuous incremental improvement is achieved efficiently and cost-effectively by close integration of evidence generation with clinical care through the use of high-quality EPR data. In future work, we aim to automate completeness and quality checks and make recording processes more ‘user friendly’ and constructed in ways that minimise the likelihood of missing or erroneous entries. The development of criteria that provide assurance that data conform to prespecified completeness and quality criteria would be an important development. The benefits of EPR data might be extended by testing their use in large pragmatic clinical trials. It would also be of value to develop methods to quality assure EPR data including involving parents, and link the NNRD to other health, social care and educational data sets to facilitate the acquisition of lifelong outcomes across multiple domains.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017439 (workstream 1) and PROSPERO CRD42012002168 (workstream 3).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (£1,641,471). Unrestricted donations were supplied by Abbott Laboratories (Maidenhead, UK: £35,000), Nutricia Research Foundation (Schiphol, the Netherlands: £15,000), GE Healthcare (Amersham, UK: £1000). A grant to support the use of routinely collected, standardised, electronic clinical data for audit, management and multidisciplinary feedback in neonatal medicine was received from the Department of Health and Social Care (£135,494).

Trial of healthy relationship initiatives for the very early years (THRIVE), evaluating Enhanced Triple P for Baby and Mellow Bumps additional social and care needs during pregnancy and their infants who are at higher risk of maltreatment: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Growing evidence suggests that experiences in the early years play a major role in children’s development in terms of health, wellbeing and educational attainment. The Trial of healthy relationship initiatives for the very early years (THRIVE) aims to evaluate two antenatal group interventions, Enhanced Triple P for Baby and Mellow Bumps, designed for those with additional health or social care needs in pregnancy. As both interventions aim to improve maternal mental health and parenting skills, we hypothesise that in the longer term, participation may lead to an improvement in children’s life trajectories.

Methods

THRIVE is a three-arm, longitudinal, randomised controlled trial aiming to recruit 500 pregnant women with additional health or social care needs. Participants will be referred by health and social care professionals, predominately midwives. Consenting participants will be block randomised to one of the three arms: Enhanced Triple P for Baby plus care as usual, Mellow Bumps plus care as usual or care as usual. Groups will commence when participants are between 20 and 34 weeks pregnant.

Discussion

The population we aim to recruit are traditionally referred to as “hard to reach”, therefore we will monitor referrals received from maternity and social care pathways and will be open to innovation to boost referral rates. We will set geographically acceptable group locations for participants, to limit challenges we foresee for group participation and retention. We anticipate the results of the trial will help inform policy and practice in supporting women with additional health and social care needs during antenatal and early postnatal periods. This is currently a high priority for the Scottish and UK Governments.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ISRCTN:21656568. Registered on 28 February 2014 (registered retrospectively (by 3 months)).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3571-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

E-cigarettes compared with nicotine replacement therapy within the UK Stop Smoking Services: the TEC RCT

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, a large number of smokers in the UK have stopped smoking with the help of e-cigarettes. So far, UK Stop Smoking Services (SSSs) have been reluctant to include e-cigarettes among their treatment options because data on their efficacy compared with the licensed medications are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the efficacy of refillable e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, when accompanied by weekly behavioural support.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial comparing e-cigarettes and NRT.

SETTING

Three sites that provide local SSSs.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were 886 smokers seeking help to quit smoking, aged ≥ 18 years, not pregnant or breastfeeding, with no strong preference to use or not to use NRT or e-cigarettes in their quit attempt, and currently not using NRT or e-cigarettes. A total of 886 participants were randomised but two died during the study (one in each study arm) and were not included in the analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

The NRT arm (n = 446) received NRT of their choice (single or combination), provided for up to 12 weeks. The e-cigarette arm (n = 438) received an e-cigarette starter pack and were encouraged to buy addtional e-liquids and e-cigarette products of their choice. Both arms received the same standard behavioural support. Participants attended weekly sessions at their SSS and provided outcome data at 4 weeks. They were then followed up by telephone at 6 and 12 months. Participants reporting abstinence or at least 50% reduction in cigarette consumption at 12 months were invited to attend for carbon monoxide (CO) validation. Participants/researchers could not be blinded to the intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was CO-validated sustained abstinence rates at 52 weeks. Participants lost to follow-up or not providing biochemical validation were included as non-abstainers. Secondary outcomes included abstinence at other time points, reduction in smoke intake, treatment adherence and ratings, elicited adverse reactions, and changes in self-reported respiratory health. A cost-efficacy analysis of the intervention was also conducted.

RESULTS

The 1-year quit rate was 9.9% in the NRT arm and 18.0% in the e-cigarette arm (risk ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.58; p < 0.001). The e-cigarette arm had significantly higher validated quit rates at all time points. Participants in the e-cigarette arm showed significantly better adherence and experienced fewer urges to smoke throughout the initial 4 weeks of their quit attempt than those in the NRT arm, and gave their allocated product more favourable ratings. They were also more likely to be still using their allocated product at 1 year (39.5% vs. 4.3%, χ2 = 161.4; p < 0.001). Participants assigned to e-cigarettes reported significantly less coughing and phlegm at 1 year than those assigned to NRT (controlling for smoking status). A detailed economic analysis confirmed that, because e-cigarettes incur lower NHS costs than NRT and generate a higher quit rate, e-cigarette use is more cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalisable to other types of smokers or settings, or to cartridge-based e-cigarettes.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of multisession treatment for smokers seeking help, e-cigarettes were significantly more effective than NRT. If SSSs provide e-cigarette starter packs, it is likely to boost their success rates and improve their cost-efficacy.

FUTURE WORK

The efficacy of e-cigarettes provided with different levels of support will show whether smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping within support services or whether e-cigarettes can be recommended with less intensive or no support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60477608.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The trial was supported by the Cancer Research UK Prevention Trials Unit (grant A16893).

Cost-Effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) for the Rehabilitation of Trauma Patients

OBJECTIVES

To assess the societal cost-effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM), a multidisciplinary transmural rehabilitation model for trauma patients, compared with regular care.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was performed alongside a before-and-after study, with a convenience control group measured only afterward, and a 9-month follow-up. Control group patients received regular care and were measured before implementation of the TTCM. Intervention group patients received the TTCM and were measured after its implementation. The primary outcome was generic health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Secondary outcomes included disease-specific HR-QOL, pain, functional status, and perceived recovery.

RESULTS

Eighty-three trauma patients were included in the intervention group and fifty-seven in the control group. Total societal costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group, but not statistically significantly so (EUR-267; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], EUR-4,175-3011). At 9 months, there was no statistically significant between-group differences in generic HR-QOL (0.05;95 percent CI, -0.02-0.12) and perceived recovery (0.09;95 percent CI, -0.09-0.28). However, mean between-group differences were statistically significantly in favor of the intervention group for disease-specific HR-QOL (-8.2;95 percent CI, -15.0--1.4), pain (-0.84;95CI, -1.42--0.26), and functional status (-20.1;95 percent CI, -29.6--10.7). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that if decision makers are not willing to pay anything per unit of effect gained, the TTCM has a 0.54-0.58 probability of being cost-effective compared with regular care. For all outcomes, this probability increased with increasing values of willingness-to-pay.

CONCLUSIONS

The TTCM may be cost-effective compared with regular care, depending on the decision-makers willingness to pay and the probability of cost-effectiveness that they perceive as acceptable.

Economic assessment of neonatal intensive care

Most of the studies on the costing of neonatal intensive care has concentrated on the costs associated with preterm infants which takes up more than half of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) costs. The focus has been on determining the cost-effectiveness of extreme preterm infants and those at threshold of viability. While the costs of care have an inverse relationship with gestational age (GA) and the lifetime medical costs of the extreme preterm can be as high as $450,000, the total NICU expenditure are skewed towards the care of moderate and late preterm infants who form the main bulk of patients. Neonatal intensive care, has been found to be very cost-effective at $1,000 per term infant per QALY and $9,100 for extreme preterm survivor per QALY. For low and LMIC, where NICU resources are limited, the costs of NICU care is lower largely due to a patient profile of more term and preterm of greater GAs and correspondingly less intensity of care. Public health measures, neonatal resuscitation training, empowerment of nurses to do resuscitation, increasing the accessibility to essential newborn care are recommended cheaper cost-effective measures to reduce neonatal mortality in countries with high neonatal mortality rate, whilst upgraded neonatal intensive care services are needed to further reduce neonatal mortality rate once below 15 per 1,000 livebirths. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care should also include post discharge costs which mainly fall on the health, social and educational sectors. Strategies to reduce neonatal intensive care costs could include more widespread implementation of cost-effective methods of improving neonatal outcome and reducing neonatal morbidities, including access to antenatal care, perinatal interventions to delay preterm delivery wherever feasible, improving maternal health status and practising cost saving and effective neonatal intensive care treatment.

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study

Objectives

To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis—this paper—we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM.

Methods

We recruited patients aged 45–70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively.

Results

We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (−€1803; 95% CI −€3008 to −€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs.

Conclusions

The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention Program to Enhance Adherence to Antihypertensive Medication in Comparison With Usual Care in Community Pharmacies

Introduction: Hypertension is considered an important public health issue. Inadequate disease management and non-adherence to antihypertensive medication may result in suboptimal clinical outcomes thereby imposing a financial burden on society. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a patient-tailored, pharmacist-led intervention program aimed to enhance adherence to antihypertensive medication in comparison with usual care. Materials and Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with 9-months follow-up among 170 patients using antihypertensive medication. Effect outcomes included self-reported adherence (MARS-5), beliefs about medicines (BMQ Concern and Necessity scales) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the cost-differences and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were estimated. Results: There were no significant differences in costs or effects between the intervention program and usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with usual care was 0.27 at a willingness-to-pay value of 0 €/unit of effect gained. At a willingness-to-pay value of 20,000 €/unit of effect gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.70, 0.27, 0.64, 0.87, and 0.36 for the continuous MARS-5 score, dichotomized MARS-5 score, BMQ Concern scale, BMQ Necessity scale and QALYs, respectively. Discussion: In patients with hypertension, the patient-tailored, pharmacist-led intervention program to enhance medication adherence was not considered cost-effective as compared to usual care with regard to self-reported medication adherence, beliefs about medicines and QALYs.

Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation

A cluster-randomized controlled trial, WorkUp, was conducted for working-aged patients at risk of sick leave or on short-term sick leave due to acute/subacute neck and/or back pain in Sweden. The purpose of WorkUp was to facilitate participants to stay at work or in case of sick leave, return-to-work. The aim of this study was to study whether the WorkUp trial was cost-effective. Patients in the intervention and reference group received structured evidence-based physiotherapy, while patients in the intervention group also received a work place dialogue with the employer as an add-on. The participants, 352 in total, were recruited from 20 physiotherapeutic units in primary healthcare in southern Sweden. The economic evaluation was performed both from a healthcare and a societal perspective with a 12-month time frame with extensive univariate sensitivity analyses. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with outcomes measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and proportion working for at least 4 weeks in a row without reported sick leave at 12-month follow-up. From the healthcare perspective, the ICER was €23,606 (2013 price year) per QALY gain. From the societal perspective the intervention was dominating, i.e.. less costly and more effective than reference care. Bootstrap analysis showed that the probability of the intervention to be cost-effective at €50,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY was 85% from the societal perspective. Structured evidence-based physiotherapeutic care together with workplace dialogue is a cost-effective alternative from both a societal and a healthcare perspective for acute/subacute neck and/or back pain patients.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02609750.

Economic evaluation plan of a randomised controlled trial of intra-nodular injection of anti-TNF and placebo among patients with early Dupuytren's disease: Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren's Disease (RIDD)

Dupuytren's disease (DD) is a common fibroproliferative condition of the palmar and digital fascia of the hand; however, there is currently no approved treatment for early stage DD. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab injections compared to usual care for controlling the progression of early stage DD in the Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren's Disease (RIDD) trial. Measure of effectiveness and resource use will be obtained from a randomised clinical trial, carried out in three healthcare centres, and recruiting a minimum of 138 patients aged 18 years and above with a diagnosis of early stage DD. Resource use and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at 3, 6, 9, 12 (primary outcome endpoint) and 18 months post-randomisation. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at 12 months and if the intervention is effective, a decision analytic model will be applied to estimate the lifetime effectiveness and costs. The analysis will be performed from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RIDD is the first randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation conducted among patients with early stage DD. The protocol described here records our intent to conduct both a within-trial CUA alongside the RIDD study and a lifetime CUA using decision-analytic modelling.

Economic evaluation plan of a randomised controlled trial of intra-nodular injection of anti-TNF and placebo among patients with early Dupuytren's disease: Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren's Disease (RIDD)

Dupuytren's disease (DD) is a common fibroproliferative condition of the palmar and digital fascia of the hand; however, there is currently no approved treatment for early stage DD. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab injections compared to usual care for controlling the progression of early stage DD in the Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren's Disease (RIDD) trial. Measure of effectiveness and resource use will be obtained from a randomised clinical trial, carried out in three healthcare centres, and recruiting a minimum of 138 patients aged 18 years and above with a diagnosis of early stage DD. Resource use and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at 3, 6, 9, 12 (primary outcome endpoint) and 18 months post-randomisation. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at 12 months and if the intervention is effective, a decision analytic model will be applied to estimate the lifetime effectiveness and costs. The analysis will be performed from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RIDD is the first randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation conducted among patients with early stage DD. The protocol described here records our intent to conduct both a within-trial CUA alongside the RIDD study and a lifetime CUA using decision-analytic modelling.

"Mendelian Randomization" Approach in Economic Assessment of Health Conditions

The increased prevalence of non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs) is reflected in the rising economic burden of health conditions. Observational studies conducted in health economics research are detecting associations of NCDs or related risk factors with economic measures like health insurance, economic inequalities, accessibility of jobs, education, annual income, health expenditure, etc. The inferences of such relationships do not prove causation and are limited to associations which are many times influenced by confounding factors and reverse causation. Mendelian randomization (MR) approach is a useful method for exploring causal relations between modifiable risk factors and measures of health economics. The application of MR in economic assessment of health conditions has been started and is producing fruitful results.

Visually Impaired OLder people’s Exercise programme for falls prevenTion (VIOLET): a feasibility study

Background

The visually impaired have a higher risk of falling and are likely to avoid activity.

Objectives

To adapt the existing Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme, which is delivered in the community, for visually impaired older people (VIOP) and to investigate the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial of this adapted intervention.

Design

Phase I – consultation with stakeholders to adapt the existing programme. Two focus groups were conducted, each with 10 VIOP across the study sites. Phase II – two-centre randomised pilot trial and economic evaluation of the adapted programme for VIOP versus usual care. Phases III and IV – qualitative interviews with VIOP and Postural Stability Instructors regarding their views and experiences of the research process, undertaking the intervention and its acceptability.

Intervention

This was adapted from the group-based FaME programme. A 1-hour exercise programme ran weekly over 12 weeks at the study sites (Newcastle upon Tyne and Glasgow) and was delivered by third-sector organisations. Participants were advised to also exercise at home for 2 hours per week. Those randomised to the usual activities group received no intervention.

Outcome measures

These were completed at baseline, week 12 and week 24. The primary potential outcome measure used was the Short Form Falls Efficacy Scale – International. Secondary outcome assessment measures were activity avoidance, current activity, balance/falls risk, physical activity, loneliness, anxiety and depression, work and social adjustment, quality of life and economic costs. Participants’ compliance was assessed by reviewing attendance records and self-reported compliance with the home exercises. Instructors’ compliance with the course content (fidelity) was assessed by a researcher attending a sample of exercise sessions. Adverse events were collected in a weekly telephone call for all participants in both the intervention and control arm.

Findings

An adapted exercise programme was devised with stakeholders. In the pilot trial, 82 participants drawn from community-living VIOP were screened, 68 met the inclusion criteria and 64 were randomised, with 33 allocated to the intervention and 31 to the usual activities arm. A total of 94% of participants provided data at week 12 and 92% at week 24. Adherence to the study was high. The intervention was found to be both safe and acceptable to participants, with 76% attending nine or more classes. Median time for home exercise was 50 minutes per week. There was little or no evidence that fear of falling, exercise, attitudinal or quality-of-life outcomes differed between trial arms at follow-up. Thematic analysis of the interviews with VIOP participants identified facilitators of and barriers to exercise, including perceived relevance to health, well-being and lifestyle, social interaction, self-perception and practical assistance. Instructors identified issues regarding level of challenge and assistance from a second person.

Limitations

The small sample size and low falls risk of the study sample are study limitations.

Conclusion

Although adaptation, recruitment and delivery were successful, the findings (particularly from qualitative research with instructors and participants) indicated that VIOP with low to moderate falls risk could be integrated into mainstream programmes with some adaptations. A future definitive trial should consider graduated exercises appropriate to ability and falls risk within mainstream provision. Other outcome measures may additionally be considered.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16949845.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Adolescent Trials Network for HIV-AIDS Scale It Up Program: Protocol for a Rational and Overview

BACKGROUND

The past 30 years have witnessed such significant progress in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS that an AIDS-free generation and the end to the global AIDS epidemic are ambitious, but achievable, national and global goals. Despite growing optimism, globally, youth living with HIV are markedly less likely to receive antiretroviral therapy than adults (23% vs 38%). Furthermore, marked health disparities exist regarding HIV infection risk, with young men of color who have sex with men disproportionately affected. A large body of research has identified highly impactful facilitators of and barriers to behavior change. Several efficacious interventions have been created that decrease the rate of new HIV infections among youth and reduce morbidity among youth living with HIV. However, full benefits that should be possible based on the tools and interventions currently available are yet to be realized in youth, in large part, because efficacious interventions have not been implemented in real-world settings. Scale It Up (SIU) primarily aims to assemble research teams that will ultimately bring to practice evidence-based interventions that positively impact the youth HIV prevention and care cascades, and in turn, advance the fields of implementation science and self-management science.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to describe the structure of the U19-SIU and the effectiveness-implementation hybrid trials, as well as other center-wide protocols and initiatives, implemented within SIU.

METHODS

SIU will achieve its aims through 4 individual primary protocols, 2 center-wide protocols, and 3 cross-project initiatives.

RESULTS

SIU was funded by National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (U19HD089875) and began in October 2016. As of November 2018, 6 SIU protocols have launched at least the first phase of work (ATN 144 SMART: Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial; ATN 145 YMHP: Young Men's Health Project; ATN 146 TMI: Tailored Motivational Interviewing Intervention; ATN 153 EPIS: Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment model; ATN 154 CM: Cascade Monitoring; ATN 156 We Test: Couples' Communication and HIV Testing). Further details can be found in the individual protocol papers.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, the youth HIV research portfolio has not adequately advanced the important care area of self-management. SIU protocols and initiatives address this broad issue by focusing on evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of self-management interventions. SIU is highly innovative for 5 primary reasons: (1) our research framework expands the application of "self-management"; (2) the 4 primary protocols utilize innovative hybrid designs; (3) our Analytic Core will conduct cost-effectiveness analyses of each intervention; (4) across all 4 primary protocols, our Implementation Science Core will apply implementation scales designed to assess inner and outer context factors; and (5) we shall advance understanding of the dynamics between provider and patient through analysis of recorded interactions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/11204.

Health economic aspects of late preterm and early term birth

Despite an increasing body of knowledge on the adverse clinical sequelae associated with late preterm birth and early term birth, little is known about their economic consequences or the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at their prevention or alleviation of their effects. This review assesses the health economic evidence surrounding late preterm and early term birth. Evidence is gathered on hospital resource use associated with late preterm and early term birth, economic costs associated with late preterm and early term birth, and economic evaluations of prevention and treatment strategies. The article highlights the limited perspective and time horizon of most studies of economic costs in this area; the limited evidence surrounding health economic aspects of early term birth; the gaps in current knowledge; and it discusses directions for future research in this area, including the need for validated tools for measuring preference-based health-related quality-of-life outcomes in infants that will aid cost-effectiveness-based decision-making.

A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments

Internationally, policy makers are increasingly focussed on reducing the detrimental consequences and rising costs associated with unhealthy diets, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and other risk factors on the health of their populations. This has led to an increase in the demand for evidence-based, cost-effective Population Health Interventions (PHIs) to reverse this trend. Given that research designs such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often not suited to the evaluation of PHIs, Natural Experiments (NEs) are now frequently being used as a design to evaluate such complex, preventive PHIs. However, current guidance for economic evaluation focusses on RCT designs and therefore does not address the specific challenges of NE designs. Using such guidance can lead to sub-optimal design, data collection and analysis for NEs, leading to bias in the estimated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PHI. As a consequence, there is a growing recognition of the need to identify a robust methodological framework for the design and conducting of economic evaluations alongside such NEs. This paper outlines the challenges inherent to the design and conduct of economic evaluations of PHIs alongside NEs, providing a comprehensive framework and outlining a research agenda in this area.

Economic evaluation of telephone-based weight loss support for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial

Background

The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is increasing worldwide. Obesity is an important modifiable risk factor for both the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, international guidelines recommend all patients with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight receive support to lose weight. However, few overweight patients with this condition receive care to support weight loss. Telephone-based interventions are one potential solution to provide scalable care to the many patients with knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this study is to evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese.

Methods

An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Between May 19 and June 30, 2015, 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the utility measure and knee pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were the clinical measures of effect. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. Data was collected at baseline, 6 weeks and 26 weeks. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.

Results

Mean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were $493 (95%CI: -3513 to 5363) for healthcare costs, $-32 (95%CI: -73 to 13) for medication costs, and $125 (95%CI: -151 to 486) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1197 (95%CI: -2887 to 6106). For QALYs and all clinical measures of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.36 at all willingness-to-pay values.

Conclusions

From a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12615000490572, registered 18th May 2015

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6300-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Feasibility of trial procedures for a randomised controlled trial of a community based group exercise intervention for falls prevention for visually impaired older people: the VIOLET study

BACKGROUND

Visually impaired older people (VIOP) have a higher risk of falling than their sighted peers, and are likely to avoid physical activity. The aim was to adapt the existing Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme for VIOP, delivered in the community, and to investigate the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of this adapted intervention.

METHODS

Two-centre randomised mixed methods pilot trial and economic evaluation of the adapted group-based FaME programme for VIOP versus usual care. A one hour exercise programme ran weekly over 12 weeks at the study sites (Newcastle and Glasgow), delivered by third sector (voluntary and community) organisations. Participants were advised to exercise at home for an additional two hours over the week. Those randomised to the usual activities group received no intervention. Outcome measures were completed at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks. The potential primary outcome was the Short Form Falls Efficacy Scale - International (SFES-I). Participants' adherence was assessed by reviewing attendance records and self-reported compliance to the home exercises. Adherence with the course content (fidelity) by instructors was assessed by a researcher. Adverse events were collected in a weekly phone call.

RESULTS

Eighteen participants, drawn from community-living VIOP were screened; 68 met the inclusion criteria; 64 participants were randomised with 33 allocated to the intervention and 31 to the usual activities arm. 94% of participants provided data at the 12 week visit and 92% at 24 weeks. Adherence was high. The intervention was found to be safe with 76% attending nine or more classes. Median time for home exercise was 50 min per week. There was little or no evidence that fear of falling, balance and falls risk, physical activity, emotional, attitudinal or quality of life outcomes differed between trial arms at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention, FaME, was implemented successfully for VIOP and all progression criteria for a main trial were met. The lack of difference between groups on fear of falling was unsurprising given it was a pilot study but there may have been other contributory factors including suboptimal exercise dose and apparent low risk of falls in participants. These issues need addressing for a future trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN ID: 16949845 Registered: 21 May 2015.

Economic evaluation of a healthy lifestyle intervention for chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations which estimate cost-effectiveness of potential treatments can guide decisions about real-world healthcare services. We performed an economic evaluation of a healthy lifestyle intervention targeting weight loss, physical activity and diet for patients with chronic low back pain, who are overweight or obese.

METHODS

Eligible patients with chronic low back pain (n = 160) were randomized to an intervention or usual care control group. The intervention included brief advice, a clinical consultation and referral to a 6-month telephone-based healthy lifestyle coaching service. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, disability, weight and body mass index. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilization costs and work absenteeism costs. An economic analysis was performed from the societal perspective.

RESULTS

Mean total costs were lower in the intervention group than the control group (-$614; 95%CI: -3133 to 255). The intervention group had significantly lower healthcare costs (-$292; 95%CI: -872 to -33), medication costs (-$30; 95%CI: -65 to -4) and absenteeism costs (-$1,000; 95%CI: -3573 to -210). For all outcomes, the intervention was on average less expensive and more effective than usual care, and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared to usual care was relatively high (i.e., 0.81) at a willingness-to-pay of $0/unit of effect. However, the probability of cost-effectiveness was not as favourable among sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The healthy lifestyle intervention seems to be cost-effective from the societal perspective. However, variability in the sensitivity analyses indicates caution is needed when interpreting these findings.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is an economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention for chronic low back pain. The findings suggest that a healthy lifestyle intervention may be cost-effective relative to usual care.

Understanding and Identifying Key Issues with the Involvement of Clinicians in the Development of Decision-Analytic Model Structures: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Decision-analytic models play an essential role in informing healthcare resource allocation decisions; however, their value to decision makers will depend on model structures being clinically valid to determine cost-effectiveness recommendations. Clinician involvement can help modellers to develop clinically valid but straightforward structures; however, there is little guidance available on methods for clinician input to model structure. This study aims to provide an in-depth exploration of clinician involvement in structural development, highlighting key issues and generating recommendations to optimise practices.

METHODS

A qualitative study was undertaken with a range of modellers and clinicians working in different modelling contexts. In-depth interviews and case studies using observations were carried out to understand how clinicians are involved in model structural development and to identify problems and optimal approaches from informants' perspectives.

RESULTS

Twenty-four interviews and two case studies were undertaken with modellers and modelling teams. Key issues included the number and diversity of clinicians contributing to structural development, potentially impacting the generalisability of structures, and problems with clinician understanding of important information to contribute to model pathways. Modellers and clinicians suggested that clinician training in modelling could enhance structural processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations to optimise current practices include recruiting clinicians from a variety of backgrounds and using discussions between experts to develop valid and generalisable structures. Future research should focus on developing training materials for clinicians and finding ways to help modellers recruit clinicians from different settings.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of toric versus monofocal intraocular lenses in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism in the Netherlands

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toric versus monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract patients with bilateral corneal astigmatism.

SETTING

Two ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands.

DESIGN

Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

Resource-use data were collected over a 6-month postoperative period. Consecutive patients with bilateral age-related cataract and 1.25 diopters or more of corneal astigmatism were included in the economic evaluation. Patients were randomized to phacoemulsification with bilateral toric or monofocal IOL implantation. All relevant resources were included in the cost analysis. The base-case analysis was performed from a societal perspective based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The analysis comprised 77 consecutive patients (33 toric IOL; 44 monofocal IOL). Societal costs were higher in the toric IOL group (€3203 [$3864]) than in the monofocal IOL group (€2796 [US$3373]). QALYs were slightly lower in the toric IOL group (0.30 versus 0.31; P = .75). Toric IOLs were therefore inferior to monofocal IOLs from a cost-effectiveness perspective. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 1% to 15%, assuming a ceiling ratio for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2500 to €20 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From a societal perspective, bilateral toric IOL implantation in cataract patients with corneal astigmatism was not cost-effective compared with monofocal IOL implantation. Copayment by patients should therefore be considered.

SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer.

METHODS

In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3–8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan–Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken.

RESULTS

The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: −0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.