Adoption of C-reactive protein rapid tests for the management of acute childhood infections in hospitals in the Netherlands and England: a comparative health systems analysis.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests (CRP POCTs) in hospitals varies across Europe. We aimed to understand the factors that contribute to different levels of adoption of CRP POCTs for the management of acute childhood infections in two countries. METHODS: Comparative qualitative analysis of the implementation of CRP POCTs in the Netherlands and England. The study was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, spread, scale-up, and sustainability (NASSS) framework. Data were collected through document analysis and qualitative interviews with stakeholders. Documents were identified by a scoping literature review, search of websites, and through the stakeholders. Stakeholders were sampled purposively initially, and then by snowballing. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Forty-one documents resulted from the search and 46 interviews were conducted. Most hospital healthcare workers in the Netherlands were familiar with CRP POCTs as the tests were widely used and trusted in primary care. Moreover, although diagnostics were funded through similar Diagnosis Related Group reimbursement mechanisms in both countries, the actual funding for each hospital was more constrained in England. Compared to primary care, laboratory-based CRP tests were usually available in hospitals and their use was encouraged in both countries because they were cheaper. However, CRP POCTs were perceived as useful in some hospitals of the two countries in which the laboratory could not provide CRP measures 24/7 or within a short timeframe, and/or in emergency departments where expediting patient care was important. CONCLUSIONS: CRP POCTs are more available in hospitals in the Netherlands because of the greater familiarity of Dutch healthcare workers with the tests which are widely used in primary care in their country and because there are more funding constraints in England. However, most hospitals in the Netherlands and England have not adopted CRP POCTs because the alternative CRP measurements from the hospital laboratory are available in a few hours and at a lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Smart Triage, a data-driven pediatric sepsis triage platform in Eastern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis, characterized by organ dysfunction due to presumed or proven infection, has a case-fatality over 20% in severe cases in low-and-middle income countries. Early diagnosis and treatment have proven benefits, prompting our implementation of Smart Triage at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda, a program that expedites treatment through a data-driven triage platform. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of Smart Triage to explore its impact on patients and inform multicenter scale up. METHODS: The parent clinical trial for Smart Triage was pre-post in design, using the proportion of children receiving sepsis treatment within one hour as the primary outcome, a measure linked to mortality benefit in existing literature. We used a decision-analytic model with Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the cost per year-of-life-lost (YLL) averted of Smart Triage from societal, government, and patient perspectives. Healthcare utilization and lost work for seven days post-discharge were translated into costs and productivity losses via secondary linkage data. RESULTS: In 2021 United States dollars, Smart Triage requires an annuitized program cost of only $0.05 per child, but results in $15.32 saved per YLL averted. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of only $3 per YLL averted, well below published cost-effectiveness threshold estimates for Uganda, Smart Triage approaches 100% probability of cost-effectiveness over the baseline manual triage system. This cost-effectiveness was observed from societal, government, and patient perspectives. The cost-effectiveness observed was driven by a reduction in admission that, while explainable by an improved triage mechanism, may also be partially attributable to changes in healthcare utilization influenced by the coronavirus pandemic. However, Smart Triage remains cost-effective in sensitivity analyses introducing a penalty factor of up to 50% in the reduction in admission. CONCLUSION: Smart Triage's ability to both save costs and avert YLLs indicates that patients benefit both economically and clinically, while its high probability of cost-effectiveness strongly supports multicenter scale up. Areas for further research include the incorporation of years lived with disability when sepsis disability weights in low-resource settings become available and analyzing budget impact during multicenter scale up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04304235 (registered on 11/03/2020, clinicaltrials.gov).

Cost-effectiveness analysis protocol of the Smart Triage program: A point-of-care digital triage platform for pediatric sepsis in Eastern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a clinical syndrome characterized by organ dysfunction due to presumed or proven infection. Severe cases can have case fatality ratio 25% or higher in low-middle income countries, but early diagnosis and timely treatment have a proven benefit. The Smart Triage program in Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda will provide expedited sepsis treatment in children through a data-driven electronic patient triage system. To complement the ongoing Smart Triage interventional trial, we propose methods for a concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis of the Smart Triage platform. METHODS: We will use a decision-analytic model taking a societal perspective, combining government and out-of-pocket costs, as patients bear a sizeable portion of healthcare costs in Uganda due to the lack of universal health coverage. Previously published secondary data will be used to link healthcare utilization with costs and intermediate outcomes with mortality. We will model uncertainty via probabilistic sensitivity analysis and present findings at various willingness-to-pay thresholds using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. DISCUSSION: Our proposed analysis represents a first step in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of an innovative digital triage platform designed to improve clinical outcomes in pediatric sepsis through expediting care in low-resource settings. Our use of a decision analytic model to link secondary costing data, incorporate post-discharge healthcare utilization, and model clinical endpoints is also novel in the pediatric sepsis triage literature for low-middle income countries. Our analysis, together with subsequent analyses modelling budget impact and scale up, will inform future modifications to the Smart Triage platform, as well as motivate scale-up to the district and national levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration of parent clinical trial: NCT04304235, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304235. Registered 11 March 2020.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of coenzyme Q10 for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure is a commonly measured risk factor for non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular adverse events such as heart attacks and strokes. Clinical trials have suggested that coenzyme Q10, a non-prescription nutritional supplement, can effectively lower blood pressure (BP). When this review was completed and published in October 2009, it concluded that "due to the possible unreliability of the 3 included studies, it is uncertain whether or not coenzyme Q10 reduces blood pressure in the long-term management of primary hypertension." OBJECTIVES: To determine the blood pressure lowering effect of coenzyme Q10 in primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (1946 to November 2015), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2015), MEDLINE In-Process (accessed 10 November 2015), EMBASE (1974 to November 2015), Web of Science (1899 to November 2015), CINAHL (1970 to November 2015), and ClinicalTrials.gov (accessed 10 November 2015). We also searched reference lists of articles for relevant clinical trials in any language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials evaluating the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of coenzyme Q10 for a duration of at least three weeks, in patients with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary author determined trial inclusion, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. The second author independently verified trial inclusion and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: In this update of the review, one new randomized, controlled cross-over trial with a total of 30 participants was added, and one trial included in the initial review was excluded. Only two of the three included trials were pooled in the meta-analysis, as one trial was judged to have an unacceptably high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis of two RCTs (50 participants), coenzyme Q10 did not significantly change systolic BP: -3.68 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.86 to 1.49), or diastolic BP: -2.03 mm Hg (95% CI -4.86 to 0.81] ), based on clinic data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 does not have a clinically significant effect on blood pressure. In one of three trials reporting adverse effects, coenzyme Q10 was well tolerated. Due to the small number of individuals and studies available for analysis, more well-conducted trials are needed.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.