Preliminary clinical and cost effectiveness of augmented depression therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of anhedonic depression (ADepT): a single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Anhedonia (reduced interest/pleasure) symptoms and wellbeing deficits are core to depression and predict a poor prognosis. Current depression psychotherapies fail to target these features adequately, contributing to sub-optimal outcomes. Augmented Depression Therapy (ADepT) has been developed to target anhedonia and wellbeing. We aimed to establish clinical and economic proof of concept for ADepT and to examine feasibility of a future definitive trial comparing ADepT to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). Methods: In this single-centre, open-label, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial, adults meeting diagnostic criteria for a current major depressive episode, scoring ≥10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and exhibiting anhedonic features (PHQ-9 item 1 ≥ 2) were recruited primarily from high intensity Improving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) service waiting lists in Devon, UK. Participants were randomised to receive 20 sessions of CBT or ADepT, using a mimimisation algorithm to balance depression severity and antidepressant use between groups. Treatment was delivered in an out-patient university-based specialist mood disorder clinic. Researcher-blinded assessments were completed at intake and six, 12, and 18 months. Co-primary outcomes were depression (PHQ-9) and wellbeing (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) at 6 months. Primary clinical proof-of-concept analyses were intention to treat. Feasibility (including safety) and health economic analyses used complete case data. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN85278228. Findings: Between 3/29/2017 and 7/31/2018, 82 individuals were recruited (102% of target sample) and 41 individuals were allocated to each arm. A minimum adequate treatment dose was completed by 36/41 (88%) of CBT and 35/41 (85%) of ADepT participants. There were two serious adverse events in each arm (primarily suicide attempts; none of which were judged to be trial- or treatment-related), with no other evidence of harms. Intake and six-month primary outcome data was available for 37/41 (90%) CBT participants and 32/41 (78%) ADepT participants. Between-group effects favoured ADepT over CBT for depression (meanΔ = -1.35, 95% CI = -3.70, 1.00, d = 0.23) and wellbeing (meanΔ = 2.64, 95% CI = -1.71, 6.99, d = 0.27). At 18 months, the advantage of ADepT over CBT was preserved and ADepT had a >80% probability of cost-effectiveness. Interpretation: These findings provide proof of concept for ADepT and warrant continuation to definitive trial. Funding: NIHR Career Development Fellowship.

Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Economic Evaluations of Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathways Incorporating Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Context: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate has been shown to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, evidence is still evolving about how best to integrate prebiopsy MRI into the diagnostic pathway and for which patients, and whether MRI-based pathways are cost effective. Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the cost effectiveness of prebiopsy MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathways. Evidence acquisition: INTERTASC search strategies were adapted and combined with terms for prostate cancer and MRI, and used to search a wide range of databases and registries covering medicine, allied health, clinical trials, and health economics. No limits were set on country, setting, or publication year. Included studies were full economic evaluations of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways with at least one strategy including prebiopsy MRI. Model-based studies were assessed using the Philips framework, and trial-based studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Evidence synthesis: A total of 6593 records were screened after removing duplicates, and eight full-text papers, reporting on seven studies (two model based) were included in this review. Included studies were judged to have a low-to-moderate risk of bias. All studies reported cost-effectiveness analyses based in high-income countries but had significant heterogeneity in diagnostic strategies, patient populations, treatment strategies, and model characteristics. Prebiopsy MRI-based pathways were cost effective compared with pathways relying on ultrasound-guided biopsy in all eight studies. Conclusions: Incorporation of prebiopsy MRI into prostate cancer diagnostic pathways is likely to be more cost effective in than that into pathways relying on prostate-specific antigen and ultrasound-guided biopsy. The optimal prostate cancer diagnostic pathway design and method of integrating prebiopsy MRI are not yet known. Variations between health care systems and diagnostic approaches necessitate further evaluation for a particular country or setting to know how best to apply prebiopsy MRI. Patient summary: In this report, we looked at studies that measured the health care costs and benefits and harms to patients of using prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide whether men need a prostate biopsy for possible prostate cancer. We found that using prostate MRI before biopsy is likely to be less costly for health care services and probably has better outcomes for patients being investigated for prostate cancer. It is still unclear what the best way to use prostate MRI is.

The importance of disability representation to address implicit bias in the workplace.

Introduction: People are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment. Barriers can be physical or be caused by people's implicit and explicit attitudes towards people with disabilities. Methods: We utilise the Implicit Association Test to investigate implicit attitudes towards people with disabilities among Human Resource professionals and people involved in making hiring decisions. Results: We find no significant differences between people who work for large companies or Small- to Medium-sized Enterprises. Similarly, working in Human Resources (or making recruitment decisions) has no effect on implicit bias. We supply the first evidence linking a person's own health status (measured using EQ-5D-5L) to their implicit bias. We find that a worse health status is associated with lower implicit bias towards people with disabilities. In addition, we find women have lower implicit bias than men. Discussion: The discussion reflects on the need for greater disability representation within the workplace - especially in making hiring decisions.

Protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Electronic RIsk-assessment for CAncer for patients in general practice (ERICA).

INTRODUCTION: The UK has worse cancer outcomes than most comparable countries, with a large contribution attributed to diagnostic delay. Electronic risk assessment tools (eRATs) have been developed to identify primary care patients with a ≥2% risk of cancer using features recorded in the electronic record. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in English primary care. Individual general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to intervention (provision of eRATs for six common cancer sites) or to usual care. The primary outcome is cancer stage at diagnosis, dichotomised to stage 1 or 2 (early) or stage 3 or 4 (advanced) for these six cancers, assessed from National Cancer Registry data. Secondary outcomes include stage at diagnosis for a further six cancers without eRATs, use of urgent referral cancer pathways, total practice cancer diagnoses, routes to cancer diagnosis and 30-day and 1-year cancer survival. Economic and process evaluations will be performed along with service delivery modelling. The primary analysis explores the proportion of patients with early-stage cancer at diagnosis. The sample size calculation used an OR of 0.8 for a cancer being diagnosed at an advanced stage in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, equating to an absolute reduction of 4.8% as an incidence-weighted figure across the six cancers. This requires 530 practices overall, with the intervention active from April 2022 for 2 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approval from London City and East Research Ethics Committee, reference number 19/LO/0615; protocol version 5.0, 9 May 2022. It is sponsored by the University of Exeter. Dissemination will be by journal publication, conferences, use of appropriate social media and direct sharing with cancer policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22560297.

Revising the Suspected-Cancer Guidelines: Impacts on Patients' Primary Care Contacts and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the impact of revising suspected-cancer referral guidelines on primary care contacts and costs. METHODS: Participants had incident cancer (colorectal, n = 2000; ovary, n = 763; and pancreas, n = 597) codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink or England cancer registry. Difference-in-differences analyses explored guideline impacts on contact days and nonzero costs between the first cancer feature and diagnosis. Participants were controls ("old National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]") or "new NICE" if their index feature was introduced during guideline revision. Model assumptions were inspected visually and by falsification tests. Sensitivity analyses reclassified participants who subsequently presented with features in the original guidelines as "old NICE." For colorectal cancer, sensitivity analysis (n = 3481) adjusted for multimorbidity burden. RESULTS: Median contact days and costs were, respectively, 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-7) and £117.69 (IQR £53.23-£206.65) for colorectal, 5 (IQR 3-9) and £156.92 (IQR £78.46-£272.29) for ovary, and 7 (IQR 4-13) and £230.64 (IQR £120.78-£408.34) for pancreas. Revising ovary guidelines may have decreased contact days (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-1.00; P = .05) with unchanged costs, but parallel trends assumptions were violated. Costs decreased by 13% (equivalent to -£28.05, -£50.43 to -£5.67) after colorectal guidance revision but only in sensitivity analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Contact days and costs remained unchanged after pancreas guidance revision. CONCLUSIONS: The main analyses of symptomatic patients suggested that prediagnosis primary care costs remained unchanged after guidance revision for pancreatic cancer. For colorectal cancer, contact days and costs decreased in analyses adjusting for multimorbidity. Revising ovarian cancer guidelines may have decreased primary care contact days but not costs, suggesting increased resource-use intensity; nevertheless, there is evidence of confounding.

Healthcare utilisation, physical activity and mental health during COVID-19 lockdown: an interrupted time-series analysis of older adults in England.

COVID-19 measures which reduce interpersonal contact may be effective in containing the transmission, but their impacts on peoples' well-being and daily lives overtime remain unclear. Older adults are more vulnerable to both the virus and social isolation. It is therefore imperative to understand how they were affected during this period. Major concerns arising from the pandemic cover the aspects of mental health, healthcare utilisation and individual behavioural changes. Complementing the existing before-and-after analyses, we explore the impacts of easing and re-introducing COVID-19 measures by using a time-series data in England. The data was collected between May and November 2020 from the monthly surveys of the Platform for Research Online to Investigate Genetics and Cognition in Aging (PROTECT). Chi-squared analysis and interrupted time-series analysis were conducted to examine impacts of easing and re-introducing COVID-19 measures. Overall, mental health improves overtime but at a decreasing rate. The use of telephone/video consultations with a doctor or health professional presented a decreasing trend during the pandemic, whilst that of in-person consultation was increasing overtime. We observed significant variations in the time trends of mental health measures, healthcare utilisation and physical activity following the ease but not the re-introduction of COVID-19 measures. Future research is required to understand if these asymmetric impacts were driven by adaption of the people or stringency of the measures. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10433-022-00741-y.

Women's priorities towards ovarian cancer testing: a best-worst scaling study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the importance of key characteristics relating to diagnostic testing for ovarian cancer and to understand how previous test experience influences priorities. DESIGN: Case 1 best-worst scaling embedded in an online survey. SETTING: Primary care diagnostic testing in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 150 women with ovaries over 40 years old living in England and Wales. METHODS: We used best-worst scaling, a preference-based survey method, to elicit the relative importance of 25 characteristics relating to ovarian cancer testing following a systematic review. Responses were modelled using conditional logit regression. Subgroup analysis investigated variations based on testing history. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative importance scores. RESULTS: 'Chance of dying from ovarian cancer' (0.380, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.49) was the most important factor to respondents, closely followed by 'test sensitivity' (0.308, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.40). In contrast, 'time away from usual activities' (-0.244, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.15) and 'gender of healthcare provider' (-0.243, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.14) were least important to respondents overall. Women who had previously undergone testing placed higher importance on certain characteristics including 'openness of healthcare providers' and 'chance of diagnosing another condition' at the expense of reduced emphasis on characteristics such as 'pain and discomfort' and 'time away from usual activities'. CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly demonstrated items at the extreme, which were most and least important to women considering ovarian cancer testing. Differences in priorities by testing history demonstrate an experience effect, whereby preferences adapt over time based on evidence and experience. Acknowledging these differences helps to identify underlying barriers and facilitators for women with no test experience as well as shortcomings of current service based on women with experience.

A group-based behavioural intervention for weight management (PROGROUP) versus usual care in adults with severe obesity: a feasibility randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15 million people in the UK live with obesity, around 5 million of whom have severe obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥35kg/m2). Having severe obesity markedly compromises health, well-being and quality of life, and substantially reduces life expectancy. These adverse outcomes are prevented or ameliorated by weight loss, for which sustained behavioural change is the cornerstone of treatment. Although NHS specialist 'Tier 3' Weight Management Services (T3WMS) support people with severe obesity, using individual and group-based treatment, the current evidence on optimal intervention design and outcomes is limited. Due to heterogeneity of severe obesity, there is a need to tailor treatment to address individual needs. Despite this heterogeneity, there are good reasons to suspect that a structured group-based behavioural intervention may be more effective and cost-effective for the treatment of severe obesity compared to usual care. The aims of this study are to test the feasibility of establishing and delivering a multi-centre randomised controlled clinical trial to compare a group-based behavioural intervention versus usual care in people with severe obesity. METHODS: This feasibility randomised controlled study is a partially clustered multi-centre trial of PROGROUP (a novel group-based behavioural intervention) versus usual care. Adults ≥18 years of age who have been newly referred to and accepted by NHS T3WMS will be eligible if they have a BMI ≥40, or ≥35 kg/m2 with comorbidity, are suitable for group-based care and are willing to be randomised. Exclusion criteria are participation in another weight management study, planned bariatric surgery during the trial, and unwillingness or inability to attend group sessions. Outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation and success of blinding will be evaluated. Clinical measures will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be self-reported and collected remotely. Process and economic evaluations will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This randomised feasibility study has been designed to test all the required research procedures and additionally explore three key issues; the feasibility of implementing a complex trial at participating NHS T3WMS, training the multidisciplinary healthcare teams in a standard intervention, and the acceptability of a group intervention for these particularly complex patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN number 22088800.

The economic impact of cancer diagnosis to individuals and their families: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a cancer diagnosis is wide-ranging with the potential to affect income, employment and risk of poverty. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the economic impact of a cancer diagnosis for patients and their families/caregivers. METHODS: The search covered peer-reviewed journals using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PsycINFO databases. Quality appraisal was undertaken using CASP tools. Monetary values were converted to US Dollars/2019 using a purchasing power parities (PPP) conversion factor. The review included articles up to and including January 2020, written in English language, for patients with cancer aged ≥ 18 years and focused on the costs up to 5 years following a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The search was run in January 2020 and updated in November 2021. Of the 7973 articles identified, 18 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were undertaken in the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, France, UK, Malaysia, Pakistan, China and Sri Lanka. The majority were cohort studies. Twelve reported out-of-pocket costs (range US$16-US$2523/month per patient/caregiver) consisting of medical expenses (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) and non-medical expenses (e.g. travel, food and childcare). Fourteen studies reported patient/caregiver loss of income and lost productivity (range 14-57.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of cancer patients and their families/caregivers experience out-of-pocket expenditure, loss of income and lost productivity. Future research is needed to observe the effects of continuing changes to healthcare policies and social protections on the economic burden among cancer patients and their families/caregivers.

The QALY at 50: One story many voices.

Research on quality adjusted life year (QALY) has been underway for just over 50 years, which seems like a suitable milestone to review its history. The purpose of this study is to provide a historical overview of why the QALY was developed, the key theoretical work undertaken by Torrance, Bush and Fanshel and how two seminal papers shaped its subsequent development. Moving the QALY forward - there are several historical and reflective exercises. The historical interplay between politics, policy and the challenges facing the National Health Service (NHS) in formulating the QALY concept in the UK has been explored in some depth already, whilst the conceptualization and development of the methodological framework is relatively underexplored. We address this gap by viewing the QALY through the lens of the methodological debates, reflecting upon two key papers underpinning the QALY methodology and how these methods have been developed over time. In part the changes in technology e.g. Google Scholar, and the availability of tools to search for early uses of the QALY allow us to better understand the historical context in which the theoretical development of the QALY has taken place. Here we celebrate two seminal papers that shaped early QALY development. The first section provides a history of these papers, summaries their contributions and explores the uptake of these papers over time. The second section reviews the methodological debates that have surrounded the QALY over the last 50 years and looks at how the QALY has moved to address these challenges. The third section presents the voices of diverse commentators representing the field of health economics who have contributed to the subsequent development of the QALY in both theoretical and empirical capacities and captures their thoughts about future research and policy use of QALYS.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed.

Behavioral Theories That Have Influenced the Way Health State Preferences Are Elicited and Interpreted: A Bibliometric Mapping Analysis of the Time Trade-Off Method With VOSviewer Visualization.

Aim: The aim of this paper is to develop an understanding of how behavioral theories have influenced the way preferences for health-related quality of life are elicited and interpreted. We focus on the Time Trade-off (TTO) method given it represents the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) concept-that survival in less-than-full health can be deemed equivalent to a shorter survival in full health. To our knowledge this is the first review using a combination of systematic scoping review, bibliometrics and VOSviewer visualization to map the development of ideas in health economics. Methods: A priori, we selected three behavioral theories to explore within our review, referred to here as Expected Utility Theory, Non-Expected Utility Theory and Probabilistic Choice Theory. A fourth topic, Order Effects, is defined broadly to encompass behavioral theories around timing/sequence of events. For the main search, Scopus was used to identify literature that had (a) elicited TTO values and/or (b) contributed to the way TTO values were elicited and interpreted, from inception to July 2021. Papers that focused on the latter category were given the label "behavioral" and underwent additional analyses. A two stage-screening was applied to assess eligibility. Co-citation, co-authorship and co-occurrence of keywords was used to chart the development of TTO over time. Results: A total of 1,727 records were retrieved from Scopus and were supplemented by an additional 188 papers. There were 856 applied and 280 behavioral papers included in the final corpus, with the behavioral set split equally into four sets of 70 papers to chart the development of keywords over time: (1) 1972-1999; (2) 2000-2010, (3) 2010-2015 and (4) 2015-2021. Discussion: The keyword analysis suggested that whilst some ideas transition quickly from economic theory to the TTO literature, such as the impact of Order Effects, others take longer to be assimilated, for example Non-Expected Utility models or failure of constant discounting. It is therefore important that researchers within health economics work more closely with those in mainstream economics and keep abreast of the wider economics and behavioral sciences to expedite the uptake of new and relevant ideas.

Cost and time resourcing for ophthalmic simulation in the UK: a Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Survey of regional Simulation Leads in 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Ophthalmic simulation is cost-effective in complication prevention. However, there is no consistent resource allocation to provide the necessary time and finance to sustain such activities. We wished to identify the current support for the regional Simulation Leads in the UK. METHODS: An online SurveyMonkey questionnaire was sent to all 26 UK ophthalmic regional Simulation Leads in February 2021 regarding current simulation activity and the degree of time and resource support available. RESULTS: There were 22 responses within 1 month (84.6% response rate). 72.7% run regular simulation induction events for new trainees. 60% run mandatory laser simulation events. 38.1% run immersive simulation (vitreous loss fire drill). 47.6% run yearly sub-specialty events. 45.5% were required to make additional work arrangements to run simulation events. 77.3% had no job plan time allocation for simulation. 59.1% dedicated >1 hr/week to simulation. 68.2% EYESI simulators were purchased via charity/endowments. 72.7% had access to dedicated dry lab simulation (40.9% wet lab). 40.9% used deanery funds to purchase initial model eyes (supplemented by charity (36.4%) and endowments (31.8%)). 65% used unspent study leave budgets for ongoing model eyes, yet 15% reported trainees purchasing their own. CONCLUSION: Nearly all ophthalmic simulation in the UK is undertaken via goodwill and personal commitment to excellence by the regional Simulation Leads. There is minimal allowance of time or finance for these vital activities, which is sporadic at best, and unsustainable. We call for the necessary investment and dedicated time allocation to permit ophthalmic simulation to be supported and maintained.

Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from discrete choice experiments can be used to enrich understanding of preferences, inform the (re)design of screening programmes and/or improve communication within public campaigns about the benefits and harms of screening. However, reviews of screening discrete choice experiments highlight significant discrepancies between stated choices and real choices, particularly regarding willingness to undergo cancer screening. The identification and selection of attributes and associated levels is a fundamental component of designing a discrete choice experiment. Misspecification or misinterpretation of attributes may lead to non-compensatory behaviours, attribute non-attendance and responses that lack external validity. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to synthesise evidence on attribute development, alongside an in-depth review of included attributes and methodological challenges, to provide a resource for researchers undertaking future studies in cancer screening. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify discrete choice experiments estimating preferences towards cancer screening, dated between 1990 and December 2020. Data were synthesised narratively. In-depth analysis of attributes led to classification into four categories: test specific, service delivery, outcomes and monetary. Attribute significance and relative importance were also analysed. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included at full text. They covered a range of cancer sites: over half (26/49) examined colorectal screening. Most studies elicited general public preferences (34/49). In total, 280 attributes were included, 90% (252/280) of which were significant. Overall, test sensitivity and mortality reduction were most frequently found to be the most important to respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in reporting the identification, selection and construction of attributes used within cancer screening discrete choice experiments are needed. This review also highlights the importance of considering the complexity of choice tasks when considering risk information or compound attributes. Patient and public involvement and stakeholder engagement are recommended to optimise understanding of unavoidably complex choice tasks throughout the design process. To ensure quality and maximise comparability across studies, further research is needed to develop a risk-of-bias measure for discrete choice experiments.

Surgical technique, perioperative management and early outcome data of the PAUL® glaucoma drainage device.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a surgical technique and early post-operative outcomes for a novel glaucoma drainage device-the PAUL® glaucoma implant (PGI). METHODS: A consecutive cohort study of subjects who had PGI surgery between February 2019 and May 2020 with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome measures included failure (intraocular pressure (IOP) > 21 mmHg or a <20% reduction of IOP, removal of the implant, further glaucoma intervention or visual loss to no light perception). Secondary outcomes included mean IOP, mean number of medications, logMAR visual acuity (VA) and complications. RESULTS: Ninety-nine eyes of 97 patients had a preoperative IOP (mean ± standard deviation) of 28.1 ± 9.0 mmHg, falling to 18.2 ± 6.8 mmHg at 1 month, 17.9 ± 6.7 mmHg at 3 months and 13.6 ± 4.7 mmHg at 6 months. 52 patients had a 12-month mean IOP of 13.3 ± 4.4 mmHg. The mean change in number of medications was a reduction of 2.38 ± 1.48. A significant reduction in the number of medications and intraocular pressure was demonstrated after PGI (p < 0.0001). No significant change was demonstrated in VA (p = 0.1158). A total of nine cases were deemed failures (six had <20% IOP reduction from baseline and three had IOP >21 mmHg). Thirty-eight (38.4%) of eyes had complete success and achieved an unmedicated IOP <21 mmHg. Ninety (90.1%) of eyes were qualified successes (with or without topical medications). Seventy-four (74.7%) eyes have achieved an intraocular pressure of <15 mmHg. Two cases of hypotony were observed. CONCLUSION: This study presents a safe surgical technique, which significantly reduces IOP and number of medications with minimal complications.

Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review analytical methods that enable the incorporation of equity concerns within economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and EconLit was undertaken from database inception to February 2021. The search was designed to identify methodological approaches currently employed to evaluate health-related equity impacts in economic evaluation studies of healthcare interventions. Studies were eligible if they described or elaborated on a formal quantitative method used to integrate equity concerns within economic evaluation studies. Cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimisation, and cost-consequence analyses, as well as health technology appraisals, budget impact analyses, and any relevant literature reviews were included. For each of the identified methods, we provided summaries of the scope of equity considerations covered, the methods employed and their key attributes, data requirements, outcomes, and strengths and weaknesses. A traffic light assessment of the practical suitability of each method was undertaken, alongside a worked example applying the different methods to evaluate the same decision problem. Finally, the review summarises the typical trade-offs arising in cost-effectiveness analyses and discusses the extent to which the evaluation methods are able to capture these. RESULTS: In total, 68 studies were included in the review. Methods could broadly be grouped into equity-based weighting (EBW) methods, extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and mathematical programming (MP). EBW and MP methods enable equity consideration through adjustment to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, whereas equity considerations are represented through financial risk protection (FRP) outcomes in ECEA, social welfare functions (SWFs) in DCEA, and scoring/ranking systems in MCDA. The review identified potential concerns for EBW methods and MCDA with respect to data availability and for EBW methods and MP with respect to explicitly measuring changes in inequality. The only potential concern for ECEA related to the use of FRP metrics, which may not be relevant for all healthcare systems. In contrast, DCEA presented no significant concerns but relies on the use of SWFs, which may be unfamiliar to some audiences and requires societal preference elicitation. Consideration of typical cost-effectiveness and equity-related trade-offs highlighted the flexibility of most methods with respect to their ability to capture such trade-offs. Notable exceptions were trade-offs between quality of life and length of life, for which we found DCEA and ECEA unsuitable, and the assessment of lost opportunity costs, for which we found only DCEA and MP to be suitable. The worked example demonstrated that each method is designed with fundamentally different analytical objectives in mind. CONCLUSIONS: The review emphasises that some approaches are better suited to particular decision problems than others, that methods are subject to different practical requirements, and that significantly different conclusions can be observed depending on the choice of method and the assumptions made. Further, to fully operationalise these frameworks, there remains a need to develop consensus over the motivation for equity assessment, which should necessarily be informed with stakeholder involvement. Future research of this topic should be a priority, particularly within the context of equity evaluation in healthcare policy decisions.

Healthcare utilisation and physical activities for older adults with comorbidities in the UK during COVID-19.

A major concern with COVID-19 was the impact it would have on individual health, the routine use of healthcare services, and physical activities, especially for older adults with comorbidities. To address this, we studied the association between these variables for older adults during the pandemic. To explore what policy instruments might be effective in mitigating the negative impacts, we investigated the effects of a shielding notice for those identified as vulnerable by the government and social media given it has been an important source for disseminating information of COVID-19. We employed a UK sample with 3,807 participants aged ≥50 from an online survey administered during May and June 2020. Based on numbers of comorbidities, we separated the sample into a higher comorbidity group with those in the upper quartile of the sample (n = 829) and a lower comorbidity group with the remainder (n = 2,978). Statistical methods include chi-squared analyses and cross-sectional regressions. We found that individuals with higher comorbidities were more likely to have poorer self-reported health and mental health and to receive a shielding notice from the government compared to those without (p < 0.05). Decreases in physical activities were associated with poorer self-reported health and the increases were associated with better self-reported health; on the other hand, the decreases were associated with poorer mental health, but the increases did not link to better mental health. Examination of the effects of policy instruments shows that a shielding notice was positively associated with primary care use. The notice generated greater reliance on telephone/video consultations compared to in-person consultations, but the impacts were less strong for people with higher comorbidities. Frequent use of social media raised the probability of increasing physical activities and reduced that of decreasing physical activities, implying social media being an effective tool in promoting physical activities during the lockdown and subsequent restrictions.

Accounting for Heterogeneity in Resource Allocation Decisions: Methods and Practice in UK Cancer Technology Appraisals.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of novel, more efficacious and expensive cancer therapies is increasing, resulting in significant treatment effect heterogeneity and complicated treatment and disease pathways. The aim of this study is to review the extent to which UK cancer technology appraisals (TAs) consider the impact of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic search of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence TAs of colorectal, lung and ovarian cancer was undertaken for the period up to April 2020. For each TA, the pivotal clinical studies and economic evaluations were reviewed for considerations of patient and treatment effect heterogeneity. The study critically reviews the use of subgroup analysis and real-world translation in economic evaluations, alongside specific attributes of the economic modeling framework. RESULTS: The search identified 49 TAs including 49 economic models. In total, 804 subgroup analyses were reported across 69 clinical studies. The most common stratification factors were age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, with 15% (119 of 804) of analyses demonstrating significantly different clinical outcomes to the main population; economic subgroup analyses were undertaken in only 17 TAs. All economic models were cohort-level with the majority described as partitioned survival models (39) or Markov/semi-Markov models. The impact of real-world heterogeneity on disease progression estimates was only explored in 2 models. CONCLUSION: The ability of current modeling approaches to capture patient and treatment effect heterogeneity is constrained by their limited flexibility and simplistic nature. This study highlights a need for the use of more sophisticated modeling methods that enable greater consideration of real-world heterogeneity.