Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women With Suspected Preterm Preeclampsia: A Stratified Analysis of the PARROT-2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: PlGF (placental growth factor)-based testing reduces severe maternal adverse outcomes. Repeat PlGF-based testing is not associated with improved perinatal or maternal outcomes. This planned secondary analysis aimed to determine whether there is a subgroup of women who benefit from repeat testing. METHODS: Pregnant individuals with suspected preterm preeclampsia were randomized to repeat revealed PlGF-based testing, compared with usual care where testing was concealed. Perinatal and maternal outcomes were stratified by trial group, by initial PlGF-based test result, and by PlGF-based test type (PlGF or sFlt-1 [soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1]/PlGF ratio). RESULTS: A total of 1252 pregnant individuals were included. Abnormal initial PlGF-based test identified a more severe phenotype of preeclampsia, at increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Repeat testing was not significantly associated with clinical benefit in women with abnormal initial results. Of women with a normal initial result, 20% developed preeclampsia, with the majority at least 3 to 4 weeks after initial presentation. Repeat test results were more likely to change from normal to abnormal in symptomatic women (112/415; 27%) compared with asymptomatic women (163/890; 18%). A higher proportion of symptomatic women who changed from normal to abnormal were diagnosed with preeclampsia, compared with asymptomatic women. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not demonstrate evidence of the clinical benefit of repeating PlGF-based testing if the initial result is abnormal. Judicious use of repeat PlGF-based testing to stratify risk may be considered at least 2 weeks after a normal initial test result, particularly in women who have symptoms or signs of preeclampsia. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN85912420; Unique identifier: ISRCTN85912420.

Cancer incidence, treatment, and survival in the prison population compared with the general population in England: a population-based, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The growing and ageing prison population in England makes accurate cancer data of increasing importance for prison health policies. This study aimed to compare cancer incidence, treatment, and survival between patients diagnosed in prison and the general population. METHODS: In this population-based, matched cohort study, we used cancer registration data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to identify primary invasive cancers and cervical cancers in situ diagnosed in adults (aged ≥18 years) in the prison and general populations between Jan 1, 1998, and Dec 31, 2017. Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics population data for England were used to calculate age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) per year and age-standardised incidence rate ratios (ASIRR) for the 20-year period. Patients diagnosed with primary invasive cancers (ie, excluding cervical cancers in situ) in prison between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017 were matched to individuals from the general population and linked to hospital and treatment datasets. Matching was done in a 1:5 ratio according to 5-year age group, gender, diagnosis year, cancer site, and disease stage. Our primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cancer (1998-2017); the receipt of treatment with curative intent (2012-17 matched cohort), using logistic regression adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis; and overall survival following cancer diagnosis (2012-17 matched cohort), using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis, with stratification for the receipt of any treatment with curative intent. FINDINGS: We identified 2015 incident cancers among 1964 adults (1556 [77·2%] men and 459 [22·8%] women) in English prisons in the 20-year period up to Dec 31, 2017. The ASIR for cancer for men in prison was initially lower than for men in the general population (in 1998, ASIR 119·33 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI 48·59-219·16] vs 746·97 per 100 000 person-years [742·31-751·66]), but increased to a similar level towards the end of the study period (in 2017, 856·85 per 100 000 person-years [675·12-1060·44] vs 788·59 per 100 000 person-years [784·62-792·57]). For women, the invasive cancer incidence rate was low and so ASIR was not reported for this group. Over the 20-year period, the incidence of invasive cancer for men in prison increased (incidence rate ratio per year, 1·05 [95% CI 1·04-1·06], during 1999-2017 compared with 1998). ASIRRs showed that over the 20-year period, overall cancer incidence was lower in men in prison than in men in the general population (ASIRR 0·76 [95% CI 0·73-0·80]). The difference was not statistically significant for women (ASIRR 0·83 [0·68-1·00]). Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment than matched patients in the general population (274 [32·3%] of 847 patients vs 1728 [41·5%] of 4165; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85]). Being diagnosed in prison was associated with a significantly increased risk of death on adjustment for matching variables (347 deaths during 2021·9 person-years in the prison cohort vs 1626 deaths during 10 944·2 person-years in the general population; adjusted HR 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·30]); this association was partly explained by stratification by curative treatment and further adjustment for diagnosis route (adjusted HR 1·05 [0·93-1·18]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer incidence increased in people in prisons in England between 1998 and 2017, with patients in prison less likely to receive curative treatments and having lower overall survival than the general population. The association with survival was partly explained by accounting for differences in receipt of curative treatment and adjustment for diagnosis route. Improved routine cancer surveillance is needed to inform prison cancer policies and decrease inequalities for this under-researched population. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 of Research England via the University of Surrey.

Repeat placental growth factor-based testing in women with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia (PARROT-2): a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Placental growth factor (PlGF)-based testing has high diagnostic accuracy for predicting pre-eclampsia needing delivery, significantly reducing time to diagnosis and severe maternal adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of repeat PlGF-based testing is unclear. We aimed to determine whether repeat PlGF-based testing (using a clinical management algorithm and nationally recommended thresholds) reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant individuals with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, done in 22 maternity units across England, Scotland, and Wales, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with suspected pre-eclampsia between 22 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing or concealed repeat testing with usual care. The intervention was not masked to women or partners, or clinicians or data collectors, due to the nature of the trial. The trial statistician was masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite of stillbirth, early neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. The primary analysis was by the intention-to-treat principle, with a per-protocol analysis restricted to women managed according to their allocation group. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 85912420. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and Sept 30, 2022, 1253 pregnant women were recruited and randomly assigned treatment; one patient was excluded due to randomisation error. 625 women were allocated to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing and 627 women were allocated to usual care with concealed repeat PlGF-based testing (mean age 32·3 [SD 5·7] years; 879 [70%] white). One woman in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group was lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the primary perinatal composite outcome between the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (195 [31·2%]) of 625 women) compared with the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (174 [27·8%] of 626 women; relative risk 1·21 [95% CI 0·95-1·33]; p=0·18). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were four serious adverse events in the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group and six in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group; all serious adverse events were deemed unrelated to the intervention by the site principal investigators and chief investigator. INTERPRETATION: Repeat PlGF-based testing in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes. In a high-income setting with a low prevalence of adverse outcomes, universal, routine repeat PlGF-based testing of all individuals with suspected pre-eclampsia is not recommended. FUNDING: Tommy's Charity, Jon Moulton Charitable Trust, and National Institute for Health and Care Research Guy's and St Thomas' Biomedical Research Centre.

School-based relationship and sexuality education intervention engaging adolescent boys for the reductions of teenage pregnancy: the JACK cluster RCT.

Background: The need to engage boys in gender-transformative relationships and sexuality education (RSE) to reduce adolescent pregnancy is endorsed by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of If I Were Jack on the avoidance of unprotected sex and other sexual health outcomes. Design: A cluster randomised trial, incorporating health economics and process evaluations. Setting: Sixty-six schools across the four nations of the UK. Participants: Students aged 13-14 years. Intervention: A school-based, teacher-delivered, gender-transformative RSE intervention (If I Were Jack) versus standard RSE. Main outcome measures: Self-reported avoidance of unprotected sex (sexual abstinence or reliable contraceptive use at last sex) after 12-14 months. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, attitudes, skills, intentions and sexual behaviours. Results: The analysis population comprised 6556 students: 86.6% of students in the intervention group avoided unprotected sex, compared with 86.4% in the control group {adjusted odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.26], p = 0.42}. An exploratory post hoc analysis showed no difference for sexual abstinence [78.30% intervention group vs. 78.25% control group; adjusted odds ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.24), p = 0.39], but more intervention group students than control group students used reliable contraception at last sex [39.62% vs. 26.36%; adjusted odds ratio 0.52 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.920), p = 0.025]. Students in schools allocated to receive the intervention had significantly higher scores on knowledge [adjusted mean difference 0.18 (95% CI 0.024 to 0.34), p = 0.02], gender-equitable attitudes and intentions to avoid unintended pregnancy [adjusted mean difference 0.61 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.07), p = 0.01] than students in schools allocated to receive the control. There were positive but non-significant differences in sexual self-efficacy and communication skills. The total mean incremental cost of the intervention compared with standard RSE was £2.83 (95% CI -£2.64 to £8.29) per student. Over a 20-year time horizon, the intervention is likely to be cost-effective owing to its impact on unprotected sex because it would result in 379 (95% CI 231 to 477) fewer unintended pregnancies, 680 (95% CI 189 to 1467) fewer sexually transmitted infections and a gain of 10 (95% CI 5 to 16) quality-adjusted life-years per 100,000 students for a cost saving of £9.89 (95% CI -£15.60 to -£3.83). Limitations: The trial is underpowered to detect some effects because four schools withdrew and the intraclass correlation coefficient (0.12) was larger than that in sample size calculation (0.01). Conclusions: We present, to our knowledge, the first evidence from a randomised trial that a school-based, male engagement gender-transformative RSE intervention, although not effective in increasing avoidance of unprotected sex (defined as sexual abstinence or use of reliable contraception at last sex) among all students, did increase the use of reliable contraception at last sex among students who were, or became, sexually active by 12-14 months after the intervention. The trial demonstrated that engaging all adolescents early through RSE is important so that, as they become sexually active, rates of unprotected sex are reduced, and that doing so is likely to be cost-effective. Future work: Future studies should consider the longer-term effects of gender-transformative RSE as students become sexually active. Gender-transformative RSE could be adapted to address broader sexual health and other settings. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10751359. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (PHR 15/181/01) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Adolescent pregnancy is often thought to be an issue for young women alone, but it is important to engage young men to tackle the problem and find solutions. The If I Were Jack intervention was especially designed to engage with boys as well as girls aged 14 years and to promote positive masculinity and gender equality to prevent adolescent pregnancy and promote positive sexual health. It uses tailored interactive films and resources, made with the help of students and teachers, to make it relevant to each of the four UK nations. This relationship and sexuality education intervention encourages adolescents to avoid unprotected sex by delaying sexual activity until they feel ready and to use reliable contraception once sexually active. It also promotes knowledge, attitudes (such as beliefs about gender and masculinities), skills and intentions for safe and pleasurable relationships. In this trial, we compared students in 33 schools randomly allocated to deliver the intervention with students in 33 schools that continued with their usual relationship and sexuality education practices. Four schools withdrew, two because of COVID-19 school closures. This left a total of 6556 students who completed questionnaires at the start of the study and 12­14 months later. Responses from all these students showed that If I Were Jack had a positive impact on knowledge, attitudes and intentions required for safe and pleasurable relationships, but did not have a significant effect on overall avoidance of unprotected sex. This was because the intervention had no effect on delaying sexual activity. However, we found that the intervention was effective in increasing the use of reliable contraception as students became sexually active, as well as for those who already were sexually active prior to receiving the intervention. We also found that If I Were Jack was likely to provide value for money by reducing unintended pregnancies and improving sexual health.

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.

Placental growth fActor Repeat sampling for Reduction of adverse perinatal Outcomes in women with suspecTed pre-eclampsia: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARROT-2).

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a complex pregnancy disorder, characterised by new or worsening hypertension associated with multi-organ dysfunction. Adverse outcomes include eclampsia, liver rupture, stroke, pulmonary oedema, and acute kidney injury in the mother, and stillbirth, foetal growth restriction, and iatrogenic preterm delivery for the foetus. Angiogenic biomarkers, including placental growth factor (PlGF) and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1), have been identified as valuable biomarkers for preterm pre-eclampsia, accelerating diagnosis and reducing maternal adverse outcomes by risk stratification, with enhanced surveillance for high-risk women. PlGF-based testing for suspected preterm pre-eclampsia has been incorporated into national guidance. The role of repeat PlGF-based testing and its effect on maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes have yet to be evaluated. METHODS: The PARROT-2 trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of repeat revealed PlGF-based testing compared to repeat concealed testing, in women presenting with suspected pre-eclampsia between 22+0 and 35+6 weeks' gestation. The primary objective is to establish whether repeat PlGF-based testing decreases a composite of perinatal severe adverse outcomes (stillbirth, early neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission). All women prior to enrolment in the trial will have an initial revealed PlGF-based test. Repeat PlGF-based tests will be performed weekly or two-weekly, depending on the initial PlGF-based test result, with results randomised to revealed or concealed. DISCUSSION: National guidance recommends that all women presenting with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia should have a single PlGF-based test when disease is first suspected, to help rule out pre-eclampsia. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of repeat PlGF-based testing has yet to be investigated. This trial aims to address whether repeat PlGF-based testing reduces severe maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes and whether repeat testing is cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 85912420 . Registered on 25 November 2019.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE). METHODS: Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data.

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011-2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE's £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP's indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

The Role of Prevention in Reducing the Economic Impact of ME/CFS in Europe: A Report from the Socioeconomics Working Group of the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).

This report addresses the extent to which there may be scope for preventive programmes for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), and, if so, what economic benefits may accrue from the implementation of such programmes. We consider the economic case for prevention programmes, whether there is scope for preventive programmes for ME/CFS, and what are the health and economic benefits to be derived from the implementation of such programmes. We conclude that there is little scope for primary prevention programmes, given that ME/CFS is attributable to a combination of host and environmental risk factors, with host factors appearing to be most prominent, and that there are few identified modifiable risk factors that could be the focus of such programmes. The exception is in the use of agricultural chemicals, particularly organophosphates, where there is scope for intervention, and where Europe-wide programmes of health education to encourage safe use would be beneficial. There is a need for more research on risk factors for ME/CFS to establish a basis for the development of primary prevention programmes, particularly in respect of occupational risk factors. Secondary prevention offers the greatest scope for intervention, to minimise diagnostic delays associated with prolonged illness, increased severity, and increased costs.

Perceptions of European ME/CFS Experts Concerning Knowledge and Understanding of ME/CFS among Primary Care Physicians in Europe: A Report from the European ME/CFS Research Network (EUROMENE).

Background and Objectives: We have conducted a survey of academic and clinical experts who are participants in the European ME/CFS Research Network (EUROMENE) to elicit perceptions of general practitioner (GP) knowledge and understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and suggestions as to how this could be improved. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all national representatives and members of the EUROMENE Core Group and Management Committee. Survey responses were collated and then summarized based on the numbers and percentages of respondents selecting each response option, while weighted average responses were calculated for questions with numerical value response options. Free text responses were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Overall there were 23 responses to the survey from participants across 19 different European countries, with a 95% country-level response rate. Serious concerns were expressed about GPs' knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS, and, it was felt, about 60% of patients with ME/CFS went undiagnosed as a result. The vast majority of GPs were perceived to lack confidence in either diagnosing or managing the condition. Disbelief, and misleading illness attributions, were perceived to be widespread, and the unavailability of specialist centres to which GPs could refer patients and seek advice and support was frequently commented upon. There was widespread support for more training on ME/CFS at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Conclusion: The results of this survey are consistent with the existing scientific literature. ME/CFS experts report that lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is a major cause of missed and delayed diagnoses, which renders problematic attempts to determine the incidence and prevalence of the disease, and to measure its economic impact. It also contributes to the burden of disease through mismanagement in its early stages.

A Literature Review of GP Knowledge and Understanding of ME/CFS: A Report from the Socioeconomic Working Group of the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).

Background and Objectives: The socioeconomic working group of the European myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) Research Network (EUROMENE) has conducted a review of the literature pertaining to GPs' knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS; Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE search was carried out. The papers identified were reviewed following the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology, and were classified according to the focus of the enquiry (patients, GPs, database and medical record studies, evaluation of a training programme, and overview papers), and whether they were quantitative or qualitative in nature; Results: Thirty-three papers were identified in the MEDLINE search. The quantitative surveys of GPs demonstrated that a third to a half of all GPs did not accept ME/CFS as a genuine clinical entity and, even when they did, they lacked confidence in diagnosing or managing it. It should be noted, though, that these papers were mostly from the United Kingdom. Patient surveys indicated that a similar proportion of patients was dissatisfied with the primary medical care they had received. These findings were consistent with the findings of the qualitative studies that were examined, and have changed little over several decades; Conclusions: Disbelief and lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is widespread, and the resultant diagnostic delays constitute a risk factor for severe and prolonged disease. Failure to diagnose ME/CFS renders problematic attempts to determine its prevalence, and hence its economic impact.

The Development of a Consistent Europe-Wide Approach to Investigating the Economic Impact of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME/CFS): A Report from the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).

We have developed a Europe-wide approach to investigating the economic impact of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), facilitating acquisition of information on the economic burden of ME/CFS, and international comparisons of economic costs between countries. The economic burden of ME/CFS in Europe appears large, with productivity losses most significant, giving scope for substantial savings through effective prevention and treatment. However, economic studies of ME/CFS, including cost-of-illness analyses and economic evaluations of interventions, are problematic due to different, arbitrary case definitions, and unwillingness of doctors to diagnose it. We therefore lack accurate incidence and prevalence data, with no obvious way to estimate costs incurred by undiagnosed patients. Other problems include, as for other conditions, difficulties estimating direct and indirect costs incurred by healthcare systems, patients and families, and heterogeneous healthcare systems and patterns of economic development across countries. We have made recommendations, including use of the Fukuda (CDC-1994) case definition and Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC), a pan-European common symptom checklist, and implementation of prevalence-based cost-of-illness studies in different countries using an agreed data list. We recommend using purchasing power parities (PPP) to facilitate international comparisons, and EuroQol-5D as a generic measure of health status and multi-attribute utility instrument to inform future economic evaluations in ME/CFS.

Placental growth factor testing to assess women with suspected pre-eclampsia: a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous prospective cohort studies have shown that angiogenic factors have a high diagnostic accuracy in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, but we remain uncertain of the effectiveness of these tests in a real-world setting. We therefore aimed to determine whether knowledge of the circulating concentration of placental growth factor (PlGF), an angiogenic factor, integrated with a clinical management algorithm, decreased the time for clinicians to make a diagnosis in women with suspected pre-eclampsia, and whether this approach reduced subsequent maternal or perinatal adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial in 11 maternity units in the UK, which were each responsible for 3000-9000 deliveries per year. Women aged 18 years and older who presented with suspected pre-eclampsia between 20 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 36 weeks and 6 days of gestation, with a live, singleton fetus were invited to participate by the clinical research team. Suspected pre-eclampsia was defined as new-onset or worsening of existing hypertension, dipstick proteinuria, epigastric or right upper-quadrant pain, headache with visual disturbances, fetal growth restriction, or abnormal maternal blood tests that were suggestive of disease (such as thrombocytopenia or hepatic or renal dysfunction). Women were approached individually, they consented for study inclusion, and they were asked to give blood samples. We randomly allocated the maternity units, representing the clusters, to blocks. Blocks represented an intervention initiation time, which occurred at equally spaced 6-week intervals throughout the trial. At the start of the trial, all units had usual care (in which PlGF measurements were also taken but were concealed from clinicians and women). At the initiation time of each successive block, a site began to use the intervention (in which the circulating PlGF measurement was revealed and a clinical management algorithm was used). Enrolment of women continued for the duration of the blocks either to concealed PlGF testing, or after implementation, to revealed PlGF testing. The primary outcome was the time from presentation with suspected pre-eclampsia to documented pre-eclampsia in women enrolled in the trial who received a diagnosis of pre-eclampsia by their treating clinicians. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 16842031. FINDINGS: Between June 13, 2016, and Oct 27, 2017, we enrolled and assessed 1035 women with suspected pre-eclampsia. 12 (1%) women were found to be ineligible. Of the 1023 eligible women, 576 (56%) women were assigned to the intervention (revealed testing) group, and 447 (44%) women were assigned to receive usual care with additional concealed testing (concealed testing group). Three (1%) women in the revealed testing group were lost to follow-up, so 573 (99%) women in this group were included in the analyses. One (<1%) woman in the concealed testing group withdrew consent to follow-up data collection, so 446 (>99%) women in this group were included in the analyses. The median time to pre-eclampsia diagnosis was 4·1 days with concealed testing versus 1·9 days with revealed testing (time ratio 0·36, 95% CI 0·15-0·87; p=0·027). Maternal severe adverse outcomes were reported in 24 (5%) of 447 women in the concealed testing group versus 22 (4%) of 573 women in the revealed testing group (adjusted odds ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·11-0·96; p=0·043), but there was no evidence of a difference in perinatal adverse outcomes (15% vs 14%, 1·45, 0·73-2·90) or gestation at delivery (36·6 weeks vs 36·8 weeks; mean difference -0·52, 95% CI -0·63 to 0·73). INTERPRETATION: We found that the availability of PlGF test results substantially reduced the time to clinical confirmation of pre-eclampsia. Where PlGF was implemented, we found a lower incidence of maternal adverse outcomes, consistent with adoption of targeted, enhanced surveillance, as recommended in the clinical management algorithm for clinicians. Adoption of PlGF testing in women with suspected pre-eclampsia is supported by the results of this study. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of agitation in people with dementia living in care homes in England - The Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of LifE in Dementia (MARQUE) study.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia living in care homes often experience clinically significant agitation; however, little is known about its economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the cost of agitation in people with dementia living in care homes. METHODS: We used the baseline data from 1,424 residents with dementia living in care homes (part of Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of lifE in dementia (MARQUE) study) that had Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) scores recorded. We investigated the relationship between residents' health and social care costs and severity of agitation based on the CMAI total score. In addition, we assessed resource utilisation and compared costs of residents with and without clinically significant symptoms of agitation using the CMAI over and above the cost of the care home. RESULTS: Agitation defined by the CMAI was a significant predictor of costs. On average, a one-point increase in the CMAI will lead to a 0.5 percentage points (cost ratio 1.005, 95%CI 1.001 to 1.010) increase in the annual costs. The excess annual cost associated with agitation per resident with dementia was £1,125.35. This suggests that, on average, agitation accounts for 44% of the annual health and social care costs of dementia in people living in care homes. CONCLUSION: Agitation in people with dementia living in care homes contributes significantly to the overall costs increasing as the level of agitation increases. Residents with the highest level of agitation cost nearly twice as much as those with the lowest levels of agitation, suggesting that effective strategies to reduce agitation are likely to be cost-effective in this setting.

Impact and sustainability of centralising acute stroke services in English metropolitan areas: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics and stroke national audit data.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether further centralisation of acute stroke services in Greater Manchester in 2015 was associated with changes in outcomes and whether the effects of centralisation of acute stroke services in London in 2010 were sustained. DESIGN: Retrospective analyses of patient level data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database linked to mortality data from the Office for National Statistics, and the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). SETTING: Acute stroke services in Greater Manchester and London, England. PARTICIPANTS: 509 182 stroke patients in HES living in urban areas admitted between January 2008 and March 2016; 218 120 stroke patients in SSNAP between April 2013 and March 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Hub and spoke models for acute stroke care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality at 90 days after hospital admission; length of acute hospital stay; treatment in a hyperacute stroke unit; 19 evidence based clinical interventions. RESULTS: In Greater Manchester, borderline evidence suggested that risk adjusted mortality at 90 days declined overall; a significant decline in mortality was seen among patients treated at a hyperacute stroke unit (difference-in-differences -1.8% (95% confidence interval -3.4 to -0.2)), indicating 69 fewer deaths per year. A significant decline was seen in risk adjusted length of acute hospital stay overall (-1.5 (-2.5 to -0.4) days; P<0.01), indicating 6750 fewer bed days a year. The number of patients treated in a hyperacute stroke unit increased from 39% in 2010-12 to 86% in 2015/16. In London, the 90 day mortality rate was sustained (P>0.05), length of hospital stay declined (P<0.01), and more than 90% of patients were treated in a hyperacute stroke unit. Achievement of evidence based clinical interventions generally remained constant or improved in both areas. CONCLUSIONS: Centralised models of acute stroke care, in which all stroke patients receive hyperacute care, can reduce mortality and length of acute hospital stay and improve provision of evidence based clinical interventions. Effects can be sustained over time.

Development and clinimetric assessment of a nurse-administered screening tool for movement disorders in psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Movement disorders associated with exposure to antipsychotic drugs are common and stigmatising but underdiagnosed. AIMS: To develop and evaluate a new clinical procedure, the ScanMove instrument, for the screening of antipsychotic-associated movement disorders for use by mental health nurses. METHOD: Item selection and content validity assessment for the ScanMove instrument were conducted by a panel of neurologists, psychiatrists and a mental health nurse, who operationalised a 31-item screening procedure. Interrater reliability was measured on ratings for 30 patients with psychosis from ten mental health nurses evaluating video recordings of the procedure. Criterion and concurrent validity were tested comparing the ScanMove instrument-based rating of 13 mental health nurses for 635 community patients from mental health services with diagnostic judgement of a movement disorder neurologist based on the ScanMove instrument and a reference procedure comprising a selection of commonly used rating scales. RESULTS: Interreliability analysis showed no systematic difference between raters in their prediction of any antipsychotic-associated movement disorders category. On criterion validity testing, the ScanMove instrument showed good sensitivity for parkinsonism (90%) and hyperkinesia (89%), but not for akathisia (38%), whereas specificity was low for parkinsonism and hyperkinesia, and moderate for akathisia. CONCLUSIONS: The ScanMove instrument demonstrated good feasibility and interrater reliability, and acceptable sensitivity as a mental health nurse-administered screening tool for parkinsonism and hyperkinesia. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

The potential role of cost-utility analysis in the decision to implement major system change in acute stroke services in metropolitan areas in England.

BACKGROUND: The economic implications of major system change are an important component of the decision to implement health service reconfigurations. Little is known about how best to report the results of economic evaluations of major system change to inform decision-makers. Reconfiguration of acute stroke care in two metropolitan areas in England, namely London and Greater Manchester (GM), was used to analyse the economic implications of two different implementation strategies for major system change. METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to calculate difference-in-differences in costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of two major system change strategies in stroke care in London and GM. Values in the model were based on patient level data from Hospital Episode Statistics, linked mortality data from the Office of National Statistics and data from two national stroke audits. Results were presented as net monetary benefit (NMB) and using Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to assess the costs and benefits of a hypothetical typical region in England with approximately 4000 strokes a year. RESULTS: In London, after 90 days, there were nine fewer deaths per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England (95% CI -24 to 6) at an additional cost of £770,027 per 1000 stroke patients admitted. There were two additional deaths (95% CI -19 to 23) in GM, with a total costs saving of £156,118 per 1000 patients compared to the rest of England. At a £30,000 willingness to pay the NMB was higher in London and GM than the rest of England over the same time period. The results of the PBMA suggest that a GM style reconfiguration could result in a total greater health benefit to a region. Implementation costs were £136 per patient in London and £75 in GM. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of major system change in acute stroke care may result in a net health benefit to a region, even one functioning within a fixed budget. The choice of what model of stroke reconfiguration to implement may depend on the relative importance of clinical versus cost outcomes.

Multi-arm Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) comparing different durations of adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer, from the English NHS payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab improves survival in HER2+ breast cancer patients, with some evidence of adverse cardiac side effects. Current recommendations are to give adjuvant trastuzumab for one year or until recurrence, although trastuzumab treatment for only 9 or 10 weeks has shown similar survival rates to 12-month treatment. We present here a multi-arm joint analysis examining the relative cost-effectiveness of different durations of adjuvant trastuzumab. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to examine which trials' data to include in the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). A network using FinHer (9 weeks vs. zero) and BCIRG006 (12 months vs. zero) trials offered the only jointly randomisable network so these trials were used in the CEA. The 3-arm CEA compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with zero, 9-week and 12-month adjuvant trastuzumab durations in early breast cancer, using a decision tree followed by a Markov model that extrapolated the results to a lifetime time horizon. Pairwise incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated for each pair of regimens and used in budget impact analysis, and the Bucher method was used to check face validity of the findings. Addition of the PHARE trial (6 months vs. 12 months) to the network, in order to create a 4-arm CEA including the 6-month regimen, was not possible as late randomisation in this trial resulted in recruitment of a different patient population as evidenced by the NMA findings. The CEA results suggest that 9 weeks' trastuzumab is cost-saving and leads to more QALYs than 12 months', i.e. the former dominates the latter. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF) favours zero trastuzumab at willingness-to-pay levels below £2,500/QALY and treatment for 9 weeks above this threshold. The combination of the NMA and Bucher investigations suggests that the 9-week duration is as efficacious as the 12-month duration for distant-disease-free survival and overall survival, and safer in terms of fewer adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: Our CEA results suggest that 9-week trastuzumab dominates 12-month trastuzumab in cost-effectiveness terms at conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a QALY, and the 9-week regimen is also suggested to be as clinically effective as the 12-month regimen according to the NMA and Bucher analyses. This finding agrees with the results of the E2198 head-to-head study that compared 10 weeks' with 14 months' trastuzumab and found no significant difference. Appropriate trial design and reporting is critical if results are to be synthesisable with existing evidence, as selection bias can lead to recruitment of a different patient population from existing trials. Our analysis was not based on head-to-head trials' data, so the results should be viewed with caution. Short-duration trials would benefit from recruiting larger numbers of participants to reduce uncertainty in the synthesised results.

Reorganising specialist cancer surgery for the twenty-first century: a mixed methods evaluation (RESPECT-21).

BACKGROUND: There are longstanding recommendations to centralise specialist healthcare services, citing the potential to reduce variations in care and improve patient outcomes. Current activity to centralise specialist cancer surgical services in two areas of England provides an opportunity to study the planning, implementation and outcomes of such changes. London Cancer and Manchester Cancer are centralising specialist surgical pathways for prostate, bladder, renal, and oesophago-gastric cancers, so that these services are provided in fewer hospitals. The centralisations in London were implemented between November 2015 and April 2016, while implementation in Manchester is anticipated in 2017. METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed methods evaluation will analyse stakeholder preferences for centralisations; it will use qualitative methods to analyse planning, implementation and sustainability of the centralisations ('how and why?'); and it will use a controlled before and after design to study the impact of centralisation on clinical processes, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness and patient experience ('what works and at what cost?'). The study will use a framework developed in previous research on major system change in acute stroke services. A discrete choice experiment will examine patient, public and professional preferences for centralisations of this kind. Qualitative methods will include documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews and non-participant observations of meetings. Quantitative methods will include analysis of local and national data on clinical processes, outcomes, costs and National Cancer Patient Experience Survey data. Finally, we will hold a workshop for those involved in centralisations of specialist services in other settings to discuss how these lessons might apply more widely. DISCUSSION: This multi-site study will address gaps in the evidence on stakeholder preferences for centralisations of specialist cancer surgery and the processes, impact and cost-effectiveness of changes of this kind. With increasing drives to centralise specialist services, lessons from this study will be of value to those who commission, organise and manage cancer services, as well as services for other conditions and in other settings. The study will face challenges in terms of recruitment, the retrospective analysis of some of the changes, the distinction between primary and secondary outcome measures, and obtaining information on the resources spent on the reconfiguration.