Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey

Combined strategy of upfront CTCA and optimal treatment for stable chest pain: rationale and design of the CLEAR-CAD trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with stable chest pain suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) usually undergo multiple diagnostic tests to confirm or rule out obstructive CAD. Some tests may not effectively assess the presence of CAD, precluding optimal treatment. A diagnostic strategy of upfront computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) combined with optimal medical therapy (OMT) tailored to the extent of CAD may be superior to standard care in preventing major adverse cardiac events.

STUDY DESIGN

The CLEAR-CAD trial is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised, superiority trial of an upfront CTCA-guided strategy in 6444 patients presenting in an outpatient setting with suspected CAD compared with standard care, in approximately 30 participating centres in the Netherlands. The upfront CTCA-guided strategy consists of an initial CTCA which is assessed using the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS 2.0). In patients without CAD (CAD-RADS 0) no specific cardiac medication is mandated. Patients with non-obstructive CAD (CAD-RADS 1-2) are treated with preventive OMT. Patients with obstructive CAD (CAD-RADS ≥ 3) are treated with preventive and anti-anginal OMT; in the presence of pharmacologically refractory symptoms patients undergo selective revascularisation after non-invasive functional imaging for myocardial ischaemia (≥ 10%). Patients with significant left main or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis on CTCA undergo direct invasive coronary angiography and subsequent revascularisation. The primary endpoint is the composite of all-cause death and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

The CLEAR-CAD trial is the first randomised study to investigate the efficacy of a combined upfront CTCA-guided medical and selective revascularisation strategy in an outpatient setting with suspected CAD compared with standard care.

Cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for people living with motor neuron disease, and their health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND

Given the degenerative nature of the condition, people living with motor neuron disease (MND) experience high levels of psychological distress. The purpose of this research was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), adapted for the specific needs of this population, for improving quality of life.

METHODS

A trial-based cost-utility analysis over a 9-month period was conducted comparing ACT plus usual care (n = 97) versus usual care alone (n = 94) from the perspective of the National Health Service. In the primary analysis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed using health utilities generated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also carried out.

RESULTS

Difference in costs was statistically significant between the two arms, driven mainly by the intervention costs. Effects measured by EQ-5D-5L were not statistically significantly different between the two arms. The incremental cost-effectiveness was above the £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained threshold used in the UK. However, the difference in effects was statistically significant when measured by the McGill Quality of Life-Revised (MQOL-R) questionnaire. The intervention was cost-effective in a subgroup experiencing medium deterioration in motor neuron symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the intervention being cost-ineffective in the primary analysis, the significant difference in the effects measured by MQOL-R, the low costs of the intervention, the results in the subgroup analysis, and the fact that ACT was shown to improve the quality of life for people living with MND, suggest that ACT could be incorporated into MND clinical services.

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of air filtration to prevent symptomatic winter respiratory infections (including COVID-19) in care homes (AFRI-c) in England: Trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Respiratory tract infections are readily transmitted in care homes. Airborne transmission of pathogens causing respiratory tract illness is largely unmitigated. Portable high-efficiency-particulate-air (HEPA) filtration units capture microbial particles from the air, but it is unclear whether this is sufficient to reduce infections in care home residents. The Air Filtration to prevent symptomatic winter Respiratory Infections (including COVID-19) in care homes (AFRI-c) randomized controlled trial will determine whether using HEPA filtration units reduces respiratory infection episodes in care home residents.

METHODS

AFRI-c is a cluster randomized controlled trial that will be delivered in residential care homes for older people in England. Ninety-one care homes will be randomised to take part for one winter period. The intervention care homes will receive HEPA filtration units for use in communal areas and private bedrooms. Normal infection control measures will continue in all care homes. Anonymised daily data on symptoms will be collected for up to 30 residents. Ten to 12 of these residents will be invited to consent to a primary care medical notes review and (in intervention homes) to having an air filter switched on in their private room. The primary outcome will be number of symptomatic winter respiratory infection episodes. Secondary outcomes include specific clinical measures of infection, number of falls / near falls, number of laboratory confirmed infections, hospitalisations, staff sickness and cost-effectiveness. A mixed methods process evaluation will assess intervention acceptability and implementation.

DISCUSSION

The results of AFRI-c will provide vital information about whether portable HEPA filtration units reduce symptomatic winter respiratory infections in older care home residents. Findings about effectiveness, fidelity, acceptability and cost-effectiveness will support stakeholders to determine the use of HEPA filtration units as part of infection control policies.

Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions for Dementia: An Updated Systematic Review and Quality Assessment

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia. The most recent systematic review of economic evaluations for dementia highlighted weaknesses in studies, including lack of justification for model assumptions and data inputs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to update the last published systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of interventions for dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, with a focus on any methodological improvements and quality assessment of the studies.

METHODS

Systematic searches in eight databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, international HTA database, and the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were undertaken from February 2018 until August 2022. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Philips checklist and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. The findings were summarized through narrative analysis.

RESULTS

This review included 23 studies, comprising cost-utility analyses (87%), cost-benefit analyses (9%) and cost-effectiveness analyses (4%). The studies covered various interventions, including pharmacological (n = 10, 43%), non-pharmacological (n = 4, 17%), prevention (n = 4, 17%), diagnostic (n = 4, 17%) and integrated (n = 1, 4%) [diagnostics-pharmacologic] strategies. Markov transition models were commonly employed (65%), followed by decision trees (13%) and discrete-event simulation (9%). Several interventions from all categories were reported as being cost effective. The quality of reporting was suboptimal for the Methods and Results sections in almost all studies, although the majority of studies adequately addressed the decision problem, scope, and model-type selection in their economic evaluations. Regarding the quality of methodology, only a minority of studies addressed competing theories or clearly explained the rationale for model structure. Furthermore, few studies systematically identified key parameters or assessed data quality, and uncertainty was mostly addressed partially.

CONCLUSIONS

This review informs future research and resource allocation by providing insights into model-based economic evaluations for dementia interventions and highlighting areas for improvement.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-month automated text message intervention for weight management in postpartum women with overweight or obesity: protocol for the Supporting MumS (SMS) multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The reproductive years can increase women's weight-related risk. Evidence for effective postpartum weight management interventions is lacking and engaging women during this life stage is challenging. Following a promising pilot evaluation of the Supporting MumS intervention, we assess if theory-based and bidirectional text messages to support diet and physical activity behaviour change for weight loss and weight loss maintenance, are effective and cost-effective for weight change in postpartum women with overweight or obesity, compared with an active control arm receiving text messages on child health and development.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two-arm, parallel-group, assessor-blind randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness and process evaluations. Women (n=888) with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 and within 24 months of giving birth were recruited via community and National Health Service pathways through five UK sites targeting areas of ethnic and socioeconomic diversity. Women were 1:1 randomised to the intervention or active control groups, each receiving automated text messages for 12 months. Data are collected at 0, 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome is weight change at 12 months from baseline, compared between groups. Secondary outcomes include weight change (24 months) and waist circumference (cm), proportional weight gain (>5 kg), BMI (kg/m2), dietary intake, physical activity, infant feeding and mental health (6, 12 and 24 months, respectively). Economic evaluation examines health service usage and personal expenditure, health-related quality of life and capability well-being to assess cost-effectiveness over the trial and modelled lifetime. Cost-utility analysis examines cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained over 24 months. Mixed-method process evaluation explores participants' experiences and contextual factors impacting outcomes and implementation. Stakeholder interviews examine scale-up and implementation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained before data collection (West of Scotland Research Ethics Service Research Ethics Committee (REC) 4 22/WS/0003). Results will be published via a range of outputs and audiences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16299220.

Estimating Costs Associated with Disease Model States Using Generalized Linear Models: A Tutorial

Estimates of costs associated with disease states are required to inform decision analytic disease models to evaluate interventions that modify disease trajectory. Increasingly, decision analytic models are developed using patient-level data with a focus on heterogeneity between patients, and there is a demand for costs informing such models to reflect individual patient costs. Statistical models of health care costs need to recognize the specific features of costs data which typically include a large number of zero observations for non-users, and a skewed and heavy right-hand tailed distribution due to a small number of heavy healthcare users. Different methods are available for modelling costs, such as generalized linear models (GLMs), extended estimating equations and latent class approaches. While there are tutorials addressing approaches to decision modelling, there is no practical guidance on the cost estimation to inform such models. Therefore, this tutorial aims to provide a general guidance on estimating healthcare costs associated with disease states in decision analytic models. Specifically, we present a step-by-step guide to how individual participant data can be used to estimate costs over discrete periods for participants with particular characteristics, based on the GLM framework. We focus on the practical aspects of cost modelling from the conceptualization of the research question to the derivation of costs for an individual in particular disease states. We provide a practical example with step-by-step R code illustrating the process of modelling the hospital costs associated with disease states for a cardiovascular disease model.

ASPiRATION: Australian observational cohort study of comprehensive genomic profiling in metastatic lung cancer tissue

ASPiRATION is a national prospective observational cohort study assessing the feasibility, clinical and economic value of up-front tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to identify actionable genomic alterations in participants with newly diagnosed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia. This study will enrol 1000 participants with tumor available for CGP and standard of care molecular testing (EGFR/ALK/ROS1). Participants with actionable variants may receive novel targeted treatments through ASPiRATION-specific substudies, other trials/programs. Clinical outcome data will be collected for a minimum of 2 years. Study outcomes are descriptive, including the ability of CGP to identify additional actionable variants, leading to personalized treatment recommendations, and will describe the feasibility, efficiency, cost and utility of implementation of CGP nationally.

Digitally augmented, parent-led CBT versus treatment as usual for child anxiety problems in child mental health services in England and Northern Ireland: a pragmatic, non-inferiority, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anxiety problems are common in children, yet few affected children access evidence-based treatment. Digitally augmented psychological therapies bring potential to increase availability of effective help for children with mental health problems. This study aimed to establish whether therapist-supported, digitally augmented, parent-led cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) could increase the efficiency of treatment without compromising clinical effectiveness and acceptability.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, unblinded, two-arm, multisite, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of therapist-supported, parent-led CBT using the Online Support and Intervention (OSI) for child anxiety platform compared with treatment as usual for child (aged 5-12 years) anxiety problems in 34 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in England and Northern Ireland. We examined acceptability of OSI plus therapist support via qualitative interviews. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to OSI plus therapist support or treatment as usual, minimised by child age, gender, service type, and baseline child anxiety interference. Outcomes were assessed at week 14 and week 26 after randomisation. The primary clinical outcome was parent-reported interference caused by child anxiety at week 26 assessment, using the Child Anxiety Impact Scale-parent report (CAIS-P). The primary measure of health economic effect was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Outcome analyses were conducted blind in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with a standardised non-inferiority margin of 0·33 for clinical analyses. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 12890382.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 5, 2020, and Aug 3, 2022, 706 families (706 children and their parents or carers) were referred to the study information. 444 families were enrolled. Parents reported 255 (58%) child participants' gender to be female, 184 (41%) male, three (<1%) other, and one (<1%) preferred not to report their child's gender. 400 (90%) children were White and the mean age was 9·20 years (SD 1·79). 85% of families for whom clinicians provided information in the treatment as usual group received CBT. OSI plus therapist support was non-inferior for parent-reported anxiety interference on the CAIS-P (SMD 0·01, 95% CI -0·15 to 0·17; p<0·0001) and all secondary outcomes. The mean difference in QALYs across trial arms approximated to zero, and OSI plus therapist support was associated with lower costs than treatment as usual. OSI plus therapist support was likely to be cost effective under certain scenarios, but uncertainty was high. OSI plus therapist support acceptability was good. No serious adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Digitally augmented intervention brought promising savings without compromising outcomes and as such presents a valuable tool for increasing access to psychological therapies and meeting the demand for treatment of child anxiety problems.

FUNDING

Department for Health and Social Care and United Kingdom Research and Innovation Research Grant, National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Research Policy Research Programme, Oxford and Thames Valley NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, Oxford Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline.

RESULTS

We included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses.

CONCLUSION

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field.

Cost-effectiveness of Spironolactone for Adult Female Acne (SAFA): economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks.

DESIGN

Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial.

SETTING

Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising.

PARTICIPANTS

Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments).

RESULTS

Spironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).

Feasibility of comparing medical management and surgery (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone in people with symptomatic brain cavernoma - protocol for the Cavernomas: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot trial

INTRODUCTION

The top research priority for cavernoma, identified by a James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnership was 'Does treatment (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) or no treatment improve outcome for people diagnosed with a cavernoma?' This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility of answering this question in a main phase RCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a pilot phase, parallel group, pragmatic RCT involving approximately 60 children or adults with mental capacity, resident in the UK or Ireland, with an unresected symptomatic brain cavernoma. Participants will be randomised by web-based randomisation 1:1 to treatment with medical management and with surgery (neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) versus medical management alone, stratified by prerandomisation preference for type of surgery. In addition to 13 feasibility outcomes, the primary clinical outcome is symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage or new persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit measured at 6 monthly intervals. An integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) evaluates screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment discussions, and interviews with recruiters and patients/parents/carers to identify and address barriers to participation. A Patient Advisory Group has codesigned the study and will oversee its progress.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber-Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0046). We will submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals, describing the findings of the QRI and the Cavernomas: A Randomised Evaluation (CARE) pilot trial. We will present at national specialty meetings. We will disseminate a plain English summary of the findings of the CARE pilot trial to participants and public audiences with input from, and acknowledgement of, the Patient Advisory Group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN41647111.

COVID-19 and the Physio4FMD trial: Impact, mitigating strategies and analysis plans

Introduction

Functional motor disorder (FMD) is a common cause of disabling neurological symptoms such as weakness and tremor. Physio4FMD is a pragmatic, multicentre single blind randomised controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness and cost effectiveness of specialist physiotherapy for FMD. Like many other studies this trial was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

The planned statistical and health economics analyses for this trial are described, as well as the sensitivity analyses designed to assess the disruption caused by COVID-19. The trial treatment of at least 89 participants (33%) was disrupted due to the pandemic. To account for this, we have extended the trial to increase the sample size. We have identified four groups based on how participants’ involvement in Physio4FMD was affected; A: 25 were unaffected; B: 134 received their trial treatment before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up during the pandemic; C: 89 were recruited in early 2020 and had not received any randomised treatment before clinical services closed because of COVID-19; D: 88 participants were recruited after the trial was restarted in July 2021. The primary analysis will involve groups A, B and D. Regression analysis will be used to assess treatment effectiveness. We will conduct descriptive analyses for each of the groups identified and sensitivity regression analyses with participants from all groups, including group C, separately.

Discussion

The COVID-19 mitigation strategy and analysis plans are designed to maintain the integrity of the trial while providing meaningful results.

Trial registration

ISRCTN56136713.

Early assessment and intervention by a dedicated health and social care professional team in the emergency department in older adults compared to treatment-as-usual: Health Economic Analysis Plan for within-trial cost effectiveness analysis

Background: Older adults (aged over 65 years) experience high rates of adverse outcomes after presenting to emergency departments (EDs). The OPTI-MEND trial aimed to examine what impact intervention and early assessment by a dedicated health and social care professional (HSCP) team can have on quality of care for older adults in EDs. This paper presents the finalized Health Economic Analysis Plan (HEAP) specifying how the within-trial cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be conducted. Methods: This HEAP was developed retrospectively in collaboration with the OPTI-MEND team and the trial health economist to provide a plan to conduct the CEA. The HEAP aimed to fulfil international recommendations from a consensus of the required items for inclusion in HEAPs. In line with best practice guidelines, and to ensure full visibility in the scientific process, this paper makes the HEAP available in the public domain. Results: This HEAP illustrates the plan we followed when conducting our CEA. As this paper is a protocol it has no concrete results. A detailed list of all items in the HEAP are provided as Extended data on Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YVG2P. Conclusions: Cost effectiveness analysis is an opportunity to extend beyond the primary clinical analysis of a trial. Congruent to a trial’s statistical analysis plan (SAP), a HEAP outlines the plan for estimating cost effectiveness and avoiding potentially spurious post-hoc analysis and questionable policy recommendations.

Economics and Precision Medicine

Introducing precision medicine strategies into routine practice will require robust economic evidence. Decision-makers need to understand the value of a precision medicine strategy compared with alternative ways to treat patients. This chapter describes health economic analysis techniques that are needed to generate this evidence. The value of any precision medicine strategy can be demonstrated early to inform evidence generation and improve the likelihood of translation into routine practice. Advances in health economic analysis techniques are also explained and their relevance to precision medicine is highlighted. Ensuring that constraints on delivery are resolved to increase uptake and implementation will improve the value of a new precision medicine strategy. Empirical methods to quantify stakeholders' preferences can be effective to inform the design of a precision medicine intervention or service delivery model. A range of techniques to generate relevant economic evidence are now available to support the development and translation of precision medicine into routine practice. This economic evidence is essential to inform resource allocation decisions and will enable patients to benefit from cost-effective precision medicine strategies in the future.

Multicentre, randomised, economic evaluation of a web-based interactive education platform, simple or enhanced, for patients with end-stage renal disease: the PIC-R trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) affects 84 000 persons in France and costs an estimated €4.2 billion. Education about their disease empowers patients and allows improved management of their disease and better health outcomes. This study aims to explore whether the addition of an interactive web-based platform to patient education is effective and cost-effective and additionally whether complementing the platform with social functions and features improves its performance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients with severe, ESRD or post-transplant will be randomised 1:1:1 to either standard therapeutic education; or education using a specific application; or the enhanced interactive app with social features. The total follow-up duration is 18 months. Primary endpoint is the cost utility of using app-based therapeutic intervention; secondary endpoints are: compliance with treatment guidelines, app use (professionals and patients), patients' satisfaction, budget impact analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The findings will inform the deployment and reimbursement of the application. The study has ethical approval by the Ile de France ethics committee. Dissemination of the results will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03090828.

A scoping review of statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations: The current state of play

The statistical quality of trial-based economic evaluations is often suboptimal, while a comprehensive overview of available statistical methods is lacking. Therefore, this review summarized and critically appraised available statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations. A literature search was performed to identify studies on statistical methods for dealing with baseline imbalances, skewed costs and/or effects, correlated costs and effects, clustered data, longitudinal data, missing data and censoring in trial-based economic evaluations. Data was extracted on the statistical methods described, their advantages, disadvantages, relative performance and recommendations of the study. Sixty-eight studies were included. Of them, 27 (40%) assessed methods for baseline imbalances, 39 (57%) assessed methods for skewed costs and/or effects, 27 (40%) assessed methods for correlated costs and effects, 18 (26%) assessed methods for clustered data, 7 (10%) assessed methods for longitudinal data, 26 (38%) assessed methods for missing data and 10 (15%) assessed methods for censoring. All identified methods were narratively described. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available statistical methods for dealing with the most common statistical complexities in trial-based economic evaluations. Herewith, it can provide valuable input for researchers when deciding which statistical methods to use in a trial-based economic evaluation.

A randomised controlled trial to compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online parent-led treatment for child anxiety problems with usual care in the context of COVID-19 delivered in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in the UK (Co-CAT): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the context of COVID-19, NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and other children's mental health services have faced major challenges in providing psychological treatments that (i) work when delivered remotely and (ii) can be delivered efficiently to manage increases in referrals as social distancing measures have been relaxed. Anxiety problems are a common reason for referral to CAMHS, children with pre-existing anxiety problems are particularly vulnerable in the context of COVID-19, and there were concerns about increases in childhood anxiety as schools reopened. The proposed research will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a brief online parent-led cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) delivered by the OSI (Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety) platform with remote support from a CAMHS therapist compared to 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) in CAMHS and other children's mental health services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We will conduct a two-arm, multi-site, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OSI with therapist support compared to CAMHS and other child mental health services 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) during the COVID-19 outbreak and to explore parent and therapists' experiences.

DISCUSSION

If non-inferiority is shown, the research will provide (1) a solution for efficient psychological treatment for child anxiety disorders while social distancing (for the COVID-19 context and future pandemics); (2) an efficient means of treatment delivery as 'normal service' resumes to enable CAMHS to cope with the anticipated increase in referrals; and (3) a demonstration of rapid, high-quality evaluation and application of online interventions within NHS CAMHS to drive forward much-needed further digital innovation and evaluation in CAMHS settings. The primary beneficiaries will be children with anxiety disorders and their families, NHS CAMHS teams, and commissioners who will access a potentially effective, cost-effective, and efficient treatment for child anxiety problems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN12890382 . Registered prospectively on 23 October 2020.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone

BACKGROUND

Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated.

METHODS

This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

DISCUSSION

This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.

An Adaptation of the RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi Panel Method in the Time of COVID-19

The RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method is a formal group consensus process that systematically and quantitatively combines expert opinion and evidence by asking panelists to rate, discuss, then re-rate items. The method has been used to develop medical society guidelines, other clinical practice guidelines, disease classification systems, research agendas, and quality improvement interventions. Traditionally, a group of experts meet in person to discuss results of a first-round survey. After the meeting, experts complete a second-round survey used to develop areas of consensus. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this aspect of the method was not possible. As such, we have adapted the method to conduct virtual RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panels. In this study, we present a targeted literature review to describe and summarize the existing evidence on the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method and outline our adaptation for conducting these panels virtually. Transitioning from in-person to virtual meetings was not without challenges, but there have also been unexpected advantages. The method we describe here can be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for researchers and clinicians.

Using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to solve the repressed demand for primary dental care in the Brazilian Unified Health System due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized controlled study protocol nested with a before-and-after study including economic analysis

BACKGROUND

With the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of children had their dental care interrupted or postponed, generating a pent-up demand for primary care. To minimize the impact of this outage, information and communication technologies (ICT) could be an alternative. The aim of this study is to elucidate the impact of implementing the ICTs in primary dental care for children on resolving the pent-up demand for primary dental care to children in the national health system service (SUS) due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Different research strategies are being proposed to demonstrate such effect and extrapolating findings to a real-world context to guide further research, practice and policies: two clinical trials (one randomized controlled by the waiting list trial (RCT) and a before-and-after study), one simulation study to prospect trial results to a broader population and three economic evaluations using different effects. Children enrolled in a reference dental unit will be invited to participate in the before-and-after study for trials. The first 368 families will be randomized for the RCT to the intervention vs waiting list. All participants will receive the intervention, but the waiting list group will be assessed before the intervention is available for them. The intervention comprises standardized non-face-to-face primary dental care using the V4H platform. The problem-solving and the family's perception will be the primary outcomes set for the before-and-after study and RCT, respectively. They will be measured 2 weeks after randomization. Based on trial findings, we will develop theoretical models to estimate how the intervention could benefit the population included in the national health system.  Three economic evaluations will be carried out considering different trial effects (cost-effectiveness analyses). A societal perspective and the pandemic time horizon will be considered. Possible social impact (inequalities) will also be explored.

DISCUSSION

This ongoing trial may be an essential contribution to clarify positive and negative aspects related to the use of technologies for non-face-to-face dental care for children. Trial products may bring relevant contributions to the pandemic context and the post-pandemic period. Potential benefits may be feasible to implement and preserve in the health system even in the post-pandemic period. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT04798599 (registered March 2021).

The UK stand together trial: protocol for a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of KiVa to reduce bullying in primary schools

Background

Reducing bullying is a public health priority. KiVa, a school-based anti-bullying programme, is effective in reducing bullying in Finland and requires rigorous testing in other countries, including the UK. This trial aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of KiVa in reducing child reported bullying in UK schools compared to usual practice. The trial is currently on-going. Recruitment commenced in October 2019, however due to COVID-19 pandemic and resulting school closures was re-started in October 2020.

Methods

Design: Two-arm pragmatic multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process and cost-effectiveness evaluation.

Participants: 116 primary schools from four areas; North Wales, West Midlands, South East and South West England. Outcomes will be assessed at student level (ages 7–11 years; n = approximately 13,000 students).

Intervention: KiVa is a whole school programme with universal actions that places a strong emphasis on changing bystander behaviour alongside indicated actions that provide consistent strategies for dealing with incidents of bullying. KiVa will be implemented over one academic year.

Comparator: Usual practice.

Primary outcome: Student-level bullying-victimisation assessed through self-report using the extensively used and validated Olweus Bully/Victim questionnaire at baseline and 12-month follow-up.

Secondary outcomes: student-level bullying-perpetration; student mental health and emotional well-being; student level of, and roles in, bullying; school related well-being; school attendance and academic attainment; and teachers’ self-efficacy in dealing with bullying, mental well-being, and burnout.

Sample size: 116 schools (58 per arm) with an assumed ICC of 0.02 will provide 90% power to identify a relative reduction of 22% with a 5% significance level.

Randomisation: recruited schools will be randomised on 1:1 basis stratified by Key-Stage 2 size and free school meal status.

Process evaluation: assess implementation fidelity, identify influences on KiVa implementation, and examine intervention mechanisms.

Economic evaluation: Self-reported victimisation, Child Health Utility 9D, Client Service Receipt Inventory, frequency of services used, and intervention costs. The health economic analysis will be conducted from a schools and societal perspective.

Discussion

This two-arm pragmatic multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial will evaluate the KiVa anti-bullying intervention to generate evidence of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and scalability of the programme in the UK. Our integrated process evaluation will assess implementation fidelity, identify influences on KiVa implementation across England and Wales and examine intervention mechanisms. The integrated health economic analysis will be conducted from a schools and societal perspective. Our trial will also provide evidence regarding the programme impact on inequalities by testing whether KiVa is effective across the socio-economic gradient.

Trial registration

Trials ISRCTN 12300853 Date assigned 11/02/2020.

The ALLEGRO trial: a placebo controlled randomised trial of intravenous lidocaine in accelerating gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery

Background

Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery.

Methods

United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6–12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function.

Discussion

A 6–12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS).

Trial registration

EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

Towards a Broader Assessment of Value in Vaccines: The BRAVE Way Forward

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic shows that the impact of effective vaccines can extend well beyond vaccinated individuals and healthcare systems. Yet, these broader value elements are not typically considered in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) which may underestimate vaccines' broader value.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to (1) describe the gap between broader value elements identified in value frameworks for vaccines and those recognised in HTA of vaccines in nine developed markets, and (2) develop expert-informed, consensus-based recommendations on how hurdles for broader value recognition could be overcome.

METHODS

We used a four-step modified Delphi method consisting of literature research (phase I, pearl-growing approach using PubMed Web of Science and Google covering the years 2000-2019), two consecutive phases of expert elicitation (phase II and III, including two email surveys and one virtual round table with 10 experts from 9 countries) and synthesis of recommendations (phase IV).

RESULTS

Results show that about half of the broader value elements relevant to vaccines are not (consistently) considered in HTA processes of multiple higher-income countries. Experts identified five priority areas for broader value recognition, including considering (1) more comprehensive cost offsets within the health care system, (2) carer quality of life, (3) transmission value, (4) prevention of antimicrobial resistance and (5) macroeconomic effects.

CONCLUSION

To achieve a broader recognition of the value of vaccines, a three-pronged approach was recommended, focusing on (1) Evidence: proactively steering generation of high-quality evidence to quantify the broader value of vaccines to society; (2) Ability: leveraging and further developing existing methodological and analytic expertise to appropriately recognise the broad value of vaccines within HTA processes; (3) Willingness: Stimulating stakeholder engagement to change the status quo and move towards more transparent and comprehensive value assessment processes for vaccines globally.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

The economic impact of two diagnostic strategies in the management of restorations in primary teeth: a health economic analysis plan for a trial-based economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Different approaches have been used by dentists to base their decision. Among them, there are the aesthetical issues that may lead to more interventionist approaches. Indeed, using a more interventionist strategy (the World Dental Federation - FDI), more replacements tend to be indicated than using a minimally invasive one (based on the Caries Around Restorations and Sealants-CARS). Since the resources related to the long-term health effects of these strategies have not been explored, the economic impact of using the less-invasive strategy is still uncertain. Thus, this health economic analysis plan aims to describe methodologic approaches for conducting a trial-based economic evaluation that aims to assess whether a minimally invasive strategy is more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy for managing restorations in primary teeth and extrapolating these findings to a longer time horizon.

METHODS

A trial-based economic evaluation will be conducted, including three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and one cost-utility analysis (CUA). These analyses will be based on the main trial (CARDEC-03/ NCT03520309 ), in which children aged 3 to 10 were included and randomized to one of the diagnostic strategies (based on FDI or CARS). An examiner will assess children's restorations using the randomized strategy, and treatment will be recommended according to the same criteria. The time horizon for this study is 2 years, and we will adopt the societal perspective. The average costs per child for 24 months will be calculated. Three different cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) will be performed. For CEAs, the effects will be the number of operative interventions (primary CEA analysis), the time to these new interventions, the percentage of patients who did not need new interventions in the follow-up, and changes in children's oral health-related quality of life (secondary analyses). For CUA, the effect will be tooth-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. Finally, we will assess the difference when using the minimally invasive strategy for each health effect (∆effect) compared to the conventional strategy (based on FDI) as the reference strategy. The same will be calculated for related costs (∆cost). The discount rate of 5% will be applied for costs and effects. We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to handle uncertainties. The net benefit will be calculated, and acceptability curves plotted using different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Using Markov models, a longer-term economic evaluation will be carried out with trial results extrapolated over a primary tooth lifetime horizon.

DISCUSSION

The main trial is ongoing, and data collection is still not finished. Therefore, economic evaluation has not commenced. We hypothesize that conventional strategy will be associated with more need for replacements of restorations in primary molars. These replacements may lead to more reinterventions, leading to higher costs after 2 years. The health effects will be a crucial aspect to take into account when deciding whether the minimally invasive strategy will be more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy when considering the management of restorations in primary teeth. Finally, patients/parents preferences and consequent utility values may also influence this final conclusion about the economic aspects of implementing the minimally invasive approach for managing restorations in clinical practice. Therefore, these trial-based economic evaluations may bring actual evidence of the economic impact of such interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03520309 . Registered May 9, 2018. Economic evaluations (the focus of this plan) are not initiated at the moment.