How good are GPs at adhering to a pragmatic trial protocol in primary care? Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cluster-randomised pragmatic trial

Effect of faecal calprotectin testing on referrals for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently seen in primary care, yet general practitioners (GPs) often experience challenges distinguishing functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) from organic disorders. We, therefore, aim to evaluate whether a test strategy that includes point-of-care testing (POCT) for faecal calprotectin (FCal) can reduce the referral rate to paediatric specialist care among children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. The study findings will contribute to improving the recommendations on FCal use among children in primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we will randomise general practices into intervention and control groups. The intervention group will use FCal-POCT when indicated, after completing online training about its indication, interpretation and follow-up as well as communicating an FGID diagnosis. The control group will test and treat according to Dutch GP guidelines, which advise against FCal testing in children. GPs will include children aged 4-18 years presenting to primary care with chronic diarrhoea and/or recurrent abdominal pain. The primary outcome will be the referral rate for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms within 6 months after the initial assessment. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated by questionnaires completed at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. These outcomes will include parental satisfaction and concerns, gastrointestinal symptoms, impact of symptoms on daily function, quality of life, proportion of children with paediatrician-diagnosed FGID referred to secondary care, health service use and healthcare costs. A sample size calculation indicates that we need to recruit 158 GP practices to recruit 406 children.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) of the University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands) approved this study (MREC number: 201900309). The study results will be made available to patients, GPs, paediatricians and laboratories via peer-reviewed publications and in presentations at (inter)national conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Netherlands Trial Register: NL7690 (Pre-results).

Incremental Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Intensive Treatment in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Detected by Screening in the ADDITION-UK Trial: An Update with Empirical Trial-Based Cost Data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of early intensive treatment versus routine care in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening.

OBJECTIVES

To derive a trial-informed estimate of the incremental costs of intensive treatment as delivered in the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Europe (ADDITION) trial and to revisit the long-term cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

METHODS

We analyzed the electronic primary care records of a subsample of the ADDITION-Cambridge trial cohort (n = 173). Unit costs of used primary care services were taken from the published literature. Incremental annual costs of intensive treatment versus routine care in years 1 to 5 after diagnosis were calculated using multilevel generalized linear models. We revisited the long-term cost-utility analyses for the ADDITION-UK trial cohort and reported results for ADDITION-Cambridge using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model and the trial-informed cost estimates according to a previously developed evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Incremental annual costs of intensive treatment over years 1 to 5 averaged £29.10 (standard error = £33.00) for consultations with general practitioners and nurses and £54.60 (standard error = £28.50) for metabolic and cardioprotective medication. For ADDITION-UK, over the 10-, 20-, and 30-year time horizon, adjusted incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.014, 0.043, and 0.048, and adjusted incremental costs were £1,021, £1,217, and £1,311, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £71,232/QALY, £28,444/QALY, and £27,549/QALY, respectively. Respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ADDITION-Cambridge were slightly higher.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental costs of intensive treatment as delivered in the ADDITION-Cambridge trial were lower than expected. Given UK willingness-to-pay thresholds in patients with screen-detected diabetes, intensive treatment is of borderline cost effectiveness over a time horizon of 20 years and more.