What does GP out of hours care cost? An analysis of different models of out of hours care in Scotland

Low-dose oral theophylline combined with inhaled corticosteroids for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high risk of exacerbations: a RCT

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread use of therapies such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continue to suffer, have reduced life expectancy and utilise considerable NHS resources. Laboratory investigations have demonstrated that at low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/l) theophylline markedly enhances the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to a drug regimen containing ICSs in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation.

DESIGN

A multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

SETTING

The trial was conducted in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites.

PARTICIPANTS

People with COPD [i.e. who have a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) of < 0.7] currently on a drug regimen including ICSs with a history of two or more exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids (OCSs) in the previous year.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive either low-dose theophylline or placebo for 1 year. The dose of theophylline (200 mg once or twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

The number of participant-reported exacerbations in the 1-year treatment period that were treated with antibiotics and/or OCSs.

RESULTS

A total of 1578 people were randomised (60% from primary care): 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. There were 11 post-randomisation exclusions. Trial medication was prescribed to 1567 participants: 788 in the theophylline arm and 779 in the placebo arm. Participants in the trial arms were well balanced in terms of characteristics. The mean age was 68.4 [standard deviation (SD) 8.4] years, 54% were male, 32% smoked and mean FEV₁ was 51.7% (SD 20.0%) predicted. Primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline arm and 764 in the placebo arm. There were 1489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean number of exacerbations was 2.24 (SD 1.99) for participants allocated to theophylline and 2.23 (SD 1.97) for participants allocated to placebo [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.08]. Low-dose theophylline had no significant effects on lung function (i.e. FEV₁), incidence of pneumonia, mortality, breathlessness or measures of quality of life or disease impact. Hospital admissions due to COPD exacerbation were less frequent with low-dose theophylline (adjusted IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). However, 39 of the 51 excess hospital admissions in the placebo group were accounted for by 10 participants having three or more exacerbations. There were no differences in the reporting of theophylline side effects between the theophylline and placebo arms.

LIMITATIONS

A higher than expected percentage of participants (26%) ceased trial medication; this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo arms and mitigated by over-recruitment (n = 154 additional participants were recruited) and the high rate of follow-up. The limitation of not using documented exacerbations is addressed by evidence that patient recall is highly reliable and the results of a small within-trial validation study.

CONCLUSION

For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose oral theophylline to a drug regimen that includes ICSs confers no overall clinical or health economic benefit. This result was evident from the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

FUTURE WORK

To promote consideration of the findings of this trial in national and international COPD guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620.

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. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An evidence-based approach to the use of telehealth in long-term health conditions: development of an intervention and evaluation through pragmatic randomised controlled trials in patients with depression or raised cardiovascular risk

Background

Health services internationally are exploring the potential of telehealth to support the management of the growing number of people with long-term conditions (LTCs).

Aim

To develop, implement and evaluate new care programmes for patients with LTCs, focusing on two common LTCs as exemplars: depression or high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

Methods

Development

We synthesised quantitative and qualitative evidence on the effectiveness of telehealth for LTCs, conducted a qualitative study based on interviews with patients and staff and undertook a postal survey to explore which patients are interested in different forms of telehealth. Based on these studies we developed a conceptual model [TElehealth in CHronic disease (TECH) model] as a framework for the development and evaluation of the Healthlines Service for patients with LTCs.

Implementation

The Healthlines Service consisted of regular telephone calls to participants from health information advisors, supporting them to make behaviour change and to use tailored online resources. Advisors sought to optimise participants’ medication and to improve adherence.

Evaluation

The Healthlines Service was evaluated with linked pragmatic randomised controlled trials comparing the Healthlines Service plus usual care with usual care alone, with nested process and economic evaluations. Participants were adults with depression or raised CVD risk recruited from 43 general practices in three areas of England. The primary outcome was response to treatment and the secondary outcomes included anxiety (depression trial), individual risk factors (CVD risk trial), self-management skills, medication adherence, perceptions of support, access to health care and satisfaction with treatment.

Trial results

Depression trial

In total, 609 participants were randomised and the retention rate was 86%. Response to treatment [Patient Health Questionnaire 9-items (PHQ-9) reduction of ≥ 5 points and score of < 10 after 4 months] was higher in the intervention group (27%, 68/255) than in the control group (19%, 50/270) [odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 2.5;p = 0.02]. Anxiety also improved. Intervention participants reported better access to health support, greater satisfaction with treatment and small improvements in self-management, but not improved medication adherence.

CVD risk trial

In total, 641 participants were randomised and the retention rate was 91%. Response to treatment (maintenance of/reduction in QRISK®2 score after 12 months) was higher in the intervention group (50%, 148/295) than in the control group (43%, 124/291), which does not exclude a null effect (odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.9;p = 0.08). The intervention was associated with small improvements in blood pressure and weight, but not smoking or cholesterol. Intervention participants were more likely to adhere to medication, reported better access to health support and greater satisfaction with treatment, but few improvements in self-management.

The Healthlines Service was likely to be cost-effective for CVD risk, particularly if the benefits are sustained, but not for depression. The intervention was implemented largely as planned, although initial delays and later disruption to delivery because of the closure of NHS Direct may have adversely affected participant engagement.

Conclusion

The Healthlines Service, designed using an evidence-based conceptual model, provided modest health benefits and participants valued the better access to care and extra support provided. This service was cost-effective for CVD risk but not depression. These findings of small benefits at extra cost are consistent with previous pragmatic research on the implementation of comprehensive telehealth programmes for LTCs.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14172341 (depression trial) and ISRCTN27508731 (CVD risk trial).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of PhysioDirect with usual physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal problems.

DESIGN

(1) Cost-consequences comparing cost to the National Health Service (NHS), to patients, and the value of lost productivity with a range of outcomes. (2) Cost-utility analysis comparing cost to the NHS with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs).

SETTING

Four physiotherapy services in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (18+) referred by their general practitioner or self-referred for physiotherapy.

INTERVENTIONS

PhysioDirect involved telephone assessment and advice followed by face-to-face care if needed. Usual care patients were placed on a waiting list for face-to-face care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Primary clinical outcome: physical component summary from the SF-36v2 at 6 months. Also included in the cost-consequences: Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile; a Global Improvement Score; response to treatment; patient satisfaction; waiting time. Outcome for the cost-utility analysis: QALYs.

RESULTS

2249 patients took part (1506 PhysioDirect; 743 usual care). (1) Cost-consequences: there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in the cost of physiotherapy, other NHS services, personal costs or value of time off work. Outcomes were also similar. (2) Cost-utility analysis based on complete cases (n=1272). Total NHS costs, including the cost of physiotherapy were higher in the PhysioDirect group by £19.30 (95% CI -£37.60 to £76.19) and there was a QALY gain of 0.007 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.016). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2889 and the net monetary benefit at λ=£20 000 was £117 (95% CI -£86 to £310).

CONCLUSIONS

PhysioDirect may be a cost-effective alternative to usual physiotherapy care, though only with careful management of staff time. Physiotherapists providing the service must be more fully occupied than was possible under trial conditions: consideration should be given to the scale of operation, opening times of the service and flexibility in the methods used to contact patients.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for physiotherapy

BACKGROUND

As a result of long delays for physiotherapy for musculoskeletal problems, several areas in the UK have introduced PhysioDirect services in which patients telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and treatment advice. However, there is no robust evidence about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness or acceptability to patients of PhysioDirect.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether or not PhysioDirect is equally as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than usual care for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) problems in primary care.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence, incorporating economic evaluation and nested qualitative research. Patients were randomised in 2 : 1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care using a remote automated allocation system at the level of the individual, stratifying by physiotherapy site and minimising by sex, age group and site of MSK problem. For the economic analysis, cost consequences included NHS and patient costs, and the cost of lost production. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out from the perspective of the NHS. Interviews were conducted with patients, physiotherapists and their managers.

SETTING

Four community physiotherapy services in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults referred by general practitioners or self-referred for physiotherapy for a MSK problem.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients allocated to PhysioDirect were invited to telephone a senior physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice using a computerised template, followed by face-to-face care when necessary. Patients allocated to usual care were put on to a waiting list for face-to-face care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical Component Score (PCS) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included other measures of health outcome [Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EuroQol health utility measure, EQ-5D), global improvement, response to treatment], wait for treatment, time lost from work and usual activities, patient satisfaction. Data were collected by postal questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months, and from routine records by researchers blind to allocation.

RESULTS

A total of 1506 patients were allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care. Patients allocated to PhysioDirect had a shorter wait for treatment than those allocated to usual care [median 7 days vs 34 days; arm-time ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.35] and had fewer non-attended face-to-face appointments [incidence rate ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.73)]. The primary outcome at 6 months' follow-up was equivalent between PhysioDirect and usual care [mean PCS 43.50 vs 44.18, adjusted difference in means -0.01 (95% CI -0.80 to 0.79)]. The secondary measures of health outcome all demonstrated equivalence at 6 months, with slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at 6 weeks' follow-up. Patients were equally satisfied with access to care but slightly less satisfied overall with PhysioDirect compared with usual care. NHS costs (physiotherapy plus other relevant NHS costs) per patient were similar in the two arms [PhysioDirect £ 198.98 vs usual care £ 179.68, difference in means £ 19.30 (95% CI -£ 37.60 to £ 76.19)], while QALYs gained were also similar [difference in means 0.007 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.016)]. Incremental cost per QALY gained was £ 2889. The probability that PhysioDirect was cost-effective at a £ 20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold was 88%. These conclusions about cost-effectiveness were robust to sensitivity analyses. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in cost to patients or value of lost production. No adverse events were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing physiotherapy via PhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual waiting list-based care, provides faster access to treatment, appears to be safe, and is broadly acceptable to patients. PhysioDirect is probably cost-effective compared with usual care.

Out-of-hours primary care. Implications of organisation on costs

Background

To perform out-of-hours primary care, Dutch general practitioners (GPs) have organised themselves in large-scale GP cooperatives. Roughly, two models of out-of-hours care can be distinguished; GP cooperatives working separate from the hospital emergency department (ED) and GP cooperatives integrated with the hospital ED. Research has shown differences in care utilisation between these two models; a significant shift in the integrated model from utilisation of ED care to primary care. These differences may have implications on costs, however, until now this has not been investigated. This study was performed to provide insight in costs of these two different models of out-of-hours care.

Methods

Annual reports of two GP cooperatives (one separate from and one integrated with a hospital emergency department) in 2003 were analysed on costs and use of out-of-hours care. Costs were calculated per capita. Comparisons were made between the two cooperatives. In addition, a comparison was made between the costs of the hospital ED of the integrated model before and after the set up of the GP cooperative were analysed.

Results

Costs per capita of the GP cooperative in the integrated model were slightly higher than in the separate model (ε 11.47 and ε 10.54 respectively). Differences were mainly caused by personnel and other costs, including transportation, interest, cleaning, computers and overhead. Despite a significant reduction in patients utilising ED care as a result of the introduction of the GP cooperative integrated within the ED, the costs of the ED remained the same.

Conclusion

The study results show that the costs of primary care appear to be more dependent on the size of the population the cooperative covers than on the way the GP cooperative is organised, i.e. separated versus integrated. In addition, despite the substantial reduction of patients, locating the GP cooperative at the same site as the ED was found to have little effect on costs of the ED. Sharing more facilities and personnel between the ED and the GP cooperative may improve cost-efficiency.