The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Factors associated with costs and health outcomes in patients with Back and leg pain in primary care: a prospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on the economic burden of low back-related leg pain, including sciatica. The aim of this study was to describe healthcare resource utilisation and factors associated with cost and health outcomes in primary care patients consulting with symptoms of low back-related leg pain including sciatica. METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort of 609 adults visiting their family doctor with low back-related leg pain, with or without sciatica in a United Kingdom (UK) Setting. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments, received an MRI scan, and were followed-up for 12-months. The economic analysis outcome was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculated from the EQ-5D-3 L data obtained at baseline, 4 and 12-months. Costs were measured based on patient self-reported information on resource use due to back-related leg pain and results are presented from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and Societal perspective. Factors associated with costs and outcomes were obtained using a generalised linear model. RESULTS: Base-case results showed improved health outcomes over 12-months for the whole cohort and slightly higher QALYs for patients in the sciatica group. NHS resource use was highest for physiotherapy and GP visits, and work-related productivity loss highest from a societal perspective. The sciatica group was associated with significantly higher work-related productivity costs. Cost was significantly associated with factors such as self-rated general health and care received as part of the study, while quality of life was significantly predicted by self-rated general health, and pain intensity, depression, and disability scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to understanding the economics of low back- related leg pain and sciatica and may provide guidance for future actions on cost reduction and health care improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 13/09/2011 Retrospectively registered; ISRCTN62880786 .

The effects of implementing a point-of-care electronic template to prompt routine anxiety and depression screening in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (the Primary Care Osteoarthritis Trial): A cluster randomised trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40721988.

The Estimation and Inclusion of Presenteeism Costs in Applied Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Given the significant costs of reduced productivity (presenteeism) in comparison to absenteeism, and overall societal costs, presenteeism has a potentially important role to play in economic evaluations. However, these costs are often excluded. The objective of this study is to review applied cost of illness studies and economic evaluations to identify valuation methods used for, and impact of including presenteeism costs in practice. METHODS: A structured systematic review was carried out to explore (i) the extent to which presenteeism has been applied in cost of illness studies and economic evaluations and (ii) the overall impact of including presenteeism on overall costs and outcomes. Potential articles were identified by searching Medline, PsycINFO and NHS EED databases. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from economic evaluations and cost of illness studies incorporating presenteeism costs. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review which also demonstrated that presenteeism costs are rarely included in full economic evaluations. Estimation and monetisation methods differed between the instruments. The impact of disease on presenteeism whilst in paid work is high. CONCLUSIONS: The potential impact of presenteeism costs needs to be highlighted and greater consideration should be given to including these in economic evaluations and cost of illness studies. The importance of including presenteeism costs when conducting economic evaluation from a societal perspective should be emphasised in national economic guidelines and more methodological work is required to improve the practical application of presenteeism instruments to generate productivity cost estimates.

Valuing productivity costs using the friction-cost approach: Estimating friction-period estimates by occupational classifications for the UK.

The friction cost approach has been proposed as an alternative to the human capital approach in estimating productivity costs. However, it is difficult, in practice, to apply this approach due to limited availability of context-specific data. Using national and firm-level data on vacancy durations sourced from 4 organisations, we estimated vacancy durations, and consequently, length of friction period for the United Kingdom disaggregated by occupational classification. We found comparable estimates to previously reported friction periods elsewhere. The disaggregated friction period analysis confirmed occupational class has an effect on the estimated length of the friction period. The research presents estimates on vacancy durations and friction periods necessary to use the friction cost approach in a practical way in economic evaluations.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581).

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Healthcare resource utilisation and economic burden attributable to back pain in primary care: A matched case-control study in the United Kingdom.

Objective: Incremental healthcare costs attributed to back pain, and characterisation by patient and clinical factors have rarely been documented. This study aimed to assess annual healthcare resource utilisation and costs associated with back pain in primary care. Methods: Using the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD), patients with back pain were identified (study period: 01 January 2006 to 31 December 2015) using diagnostic records and analgesics prescriptions (n = 133,341), and propensity score matched 1:1 to patients without back pain. The annual incremental costs of back pain associated with consultations and prescriptions were estimated and extrapolated to a national level. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by restricting the study population to the most recent diagnosis of back pain. Variations in cost were assessed stratified by gender, age-groups, deprivation, and comorbidity categories. Results: The mean age was 57 years, and 62% were females in both the case and control groups. The total incremental healthcare costs associated with back pain was £32.5 million in 2015 (£35.9 million in 2020), with per-patient cost of £244 (£265 in 2020) per year. On a national level, this translated to an estimated £3.2 billion (£3.5 billion in 2020). Eighty percent of the costs were attributed to consultations; and female gender, older age, higher deprivation, and higher comorbidity were all associated with increased mean healthcare costs of patients with back pain. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the substantial healthcare costs attributed to back pain, even with primacy care costs only. The data also revealed significant cost variations across socio-demographic and clinical factors.

Exploring the roles of players in strategic purchasing for healthcare in Africa-a scoping review.

Following the World Health Organization (WHO) guidance on strategic purchasing in 2000, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are trying to shift from passive purchasing (using fixed budgets) to strategic purchasing of healthcare which ties reimbursement to outcomes. However, there is limited evidence on strategic purchasing in Africa. We conducted a scoping literature review aimed at summarizing the roles played by governments, purchasers and providers in relation to citizens/population in strategic purchasing in Africa. The review searched for scientific journal articles that contained data on strategic purchasing collected from Africa. The literature search identified 957 articles of which 80 matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The study revealed that in some countries strategic purchasing has been used as a tool for healthcare reforms or for strengthening systems that were not functional under fixed budgets. However, there was some evidence of a lack of government commitment in taking leading roles and funding strategic purchasing. Further, in some countries the laws need to be revised to accommodate new arrangements that were not part of fixed budgets. The review also established that there were some obstacles within the public health systems that deterred purchasers from promoting efficiency among providers and that prevented providers from having full autonomy in decision making. As African countries strive to shift from passive to strategic purchasing of healthcare, there is need for full government commitment on strategic purchasing. There is need to further revise appropriate legal frameworks to support strategic purchasing, conduct assessments of the healthcare systems before designing strategic purchasing schemes and to sensitize the providers and citizens on their roles and entitlements respectively.

Economic Evaluation of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

The primary aim of this study is to assess the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) interventions with a focus on diabetes education, lifestyle modifications, surgical intervention, and pharmacological therapy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of T2DM interventions published in LMICs for the period 2009-2019. A total of 25 studies were identified, with more than half of the studies being decision analytic models. Critical appraisal of the identified studies showed they were of good quality. Overall, the reported interventions in this review were very heterogeneous, which made them difficult to compare. However, there was strong evidence suggesting that diabetes education was a very cost-effective strategy in LMICs. Further evidence on affordability and budget impact of bariatric surgery is required before adopting the intervention. Metformin-based therapy showed promising evidence on cost-effectiveness and thus should be offered to T2DM patients in LMICs. On the contrary, the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modifications remains understudied in LMICs. The findings in this review can inform policy guidance toward the inclusion of T2DM interventions in the benefit packages for Universal Health Coverage in LMICs.

Investing in the health workforce: fiscal space analysis of 20 countries in East and Southern Africa, 2021-2026.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The health workforce (HWF) is at the core of ensuring an efficient, effective and functional health system, but it faces chronic underinvestment. This paper presents a fiscal space analysis of 20 countries in East and Southern Africa to generate sustained evidence-based advocacy for significant and smarter investment in the HWF. METHODS: We adapted an established empirical framework for fiscal space analysis and applied it to the HWF. Country-specific data were curated and triangulated from publicly available datasets and government reports to model the fiscal space for the HWF for each country. Based on the current knowledge, three scenarios (business as-usual, optimistic and very optimistic) were modelled and compared. FINDINGS: A business-as-usual scenario shows that the cumulative fiscal space across the 20 countries is US$12.179 billion, which would likely increase by 28% to US$15.612 billion by 2026 but varies across countries-the highest proportional increases expected in Seychelles (117%) and Mozambique (69%) but lowest in Zambia (15%). Under optimistic assumptions, allocating an additional 1.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) to health even without further prioritising the proportional allocation to the wage bill could boost the cumulative fiscal space for HWF by US$4.639 billion. In a very optimistic scenario of a 1.5% increase in health expenditure as a proportion of GDP and further prioritisation of HWF within the health expenditure, the cumulative fiscal space for HWF could improve by some 105%-ranging from 24% in Zambia to 330% in Lesotho. CONCLUSION: Small increments in government health expenditure and increased prioritisation of HWF in funding in tandem with the 57% global average could potentially increase the fiscal space for HWF by at least 32% in 11 countries. Unless the HWF is sufficiently prioritised within the health expenditures, only increasing the overall health expenditure to even recommended levels would still portend severe underinvestment in HWF amid unabating shortages to deliver health services. Thus, HWF strategies and investment plans should include fiscal space analysis to deepen advocacy for sustainable investment in the HWF.

Clinical effectiveness of one ultrasound guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection in addition to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis (HIT trial): single blind, parallel group, three arm, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic to advice and education in adults with hip osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three arm, parallel group, single blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two community musculoskeletal services in England. PARTICIPANTS: 199 adults aged ≥40 years with hip osteoarthritis and at least moderate pain: 67 were randomly assigned to receive advice and education (best current treatment (BCT)), 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of triamcinolone and lidocaine, and 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of lidocaine. INTERVENTIONS: BCT alone, BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 mL 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 5 mL 1% lidocaine. Participants in the ultrasound guided arms were masked to the injection they received. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported current intensity of hip pain (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) over six months. Outcomes were self-reported at two weeks and at two, four, and six months. RESULTS: Mean age of the study sample was 62.8 years (standard deviation 10.0) and 113 (57%) were women. Average weighted follow-up rate across time points was 93%. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity over six months was reported with BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT: mean difference -1.43 (95% confidence interval -2.15 to -0.72), P<0.001; standardised mean difference -0.55 (-0.82 to -0.27). No difference in hip pain intensity over six months was reported between BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT plus ultrasound-lidocaine (-0.52 (-1.21 to 0.18)). The presence of ultrasound confirmed synovitis or effusion was associated with a significant interaction effect favouring BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine (-1.70 (-3.10 to -0.30)). One participant in the BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine group with a bioprosthetic aortic valve died from subacute bacterial endocarditis four months after the intervention, deemed possibly related to the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of triamcinolone is a treatment option to add to BCT for people with hip osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations (STarT MSK): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Risk-based stratified care shows clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness versus usual primary care for non-specific low back pain but is untested for other common musculoskeletal disorders. We aimed to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care risk stratification (using Keele's STarT MSK Tool and risk-matched treatments) versus usual care for the five most common musculoskeletal presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multi-site pain). Methods: In this cluster-randomised, controlled trial in UK primary care with embedded qualitative and health economic studies we recruited patients from 24 general practices in the West Midlands region of England. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older whose general practitioner (GP) confirmed a consultation for a musculoskeletal presentation. General practices that consented to participate via a representative of the cluster were randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention or usual care, using stratified block randomisation. Researchers involved in data collection, outcome data entry, and statistical analysis were masked at both the cluster and individual participant level. Participating patients were told the study was examining GP treatment of common aches and pains and were not aware they were in a randomised trial. GPs in practices allocated to the intervention group were supported to deliver risk-based stratified care using a bespoke computer-based template, including the risk-stratification tool, and risk-matched treatment options for patients at low, medium, or high risk of poor disability or pain outcomes. There were 15 risk-matched treatment options. In the usual care group, patients with musculoskeletal pain consulting their GP received treatment as usual, typically including advice and education, medication, referral for investigations or tests, or referral to other services. The primary outcome was time-averaged pain intensity over 6 months. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15366334. Results: Between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 104 GPs from 24 practices (12 per study group) identified 2494 patients with musculoskeletal pain. 1211 (49%) participants consented to questionnaires (534 in the intervention group and 677 in the usual care group), with 1070 (88%) completing the follow-up questionnaire at 6 months. We found no significant difference in time-averaged pain intensity (mean(SD) mean 4·4 [SD 2·3] in the intervention group vs 4·6 [2·5] in the control group; adjusted mean difference -0·16, 95% CI -0·65 to 0·34) or in standardised function score (mean -0·06 [SD 0·94] in the intervention group vs 0·05 [1·04]; adjusted mean difference -0·07, 95% CI -0·22 to 0·08). No serious adverse events or adverse events were reported. Risk stratification received positive patient and clinician feedback. Interpretation: Risk stratification for patients in primary care with common musculoskeletal presentations did not lead to significant improvements in pain or function, although some aspects of GP decision making were affected, and GP and patients had positive experiences. The costs of risk-based stratified care were similar to usual care, and such a strategy only offers marginal changes in cost-effectiveness outcomes. The clinical implications from this trial are largely inconclusive. Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

New evidence on the impact of the Great Recession on health-compromising behaviours.

Using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing over the period 2004-2017, this paper explores the effects of the Great Recession and its aftermath upon health-compromising behaviours in adults aged 50 and over. We introduce new techniques into this area of research, namely dynamic random-effects logit estimators which control for initial conditions and correlated individual effects. We observe a lack of crisis effect upon the probabilities of smoking and being physically inactive, as well as of transitioning in and out of these behaviours. In line with other recent literature, this suggests that the relationship between economic recessions and smoking and physical inactivity may have broken down. Alternatively, the over 50s may have been protected from the crisis and subsequent austerity measures. Nonetheless, both the crisis and post-crisis period were associated with a lower probability of drinking frequently.

Methodological considerations in the assessment of direct and indirect costs of back pain: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is a common and costly health problem worldwide. There is yet a lack of consistent methodologies to estimate the economic burden of back pain to society. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the methodologies used in the published cost of illness (COI) literature for estimating the direct and indirect costs attributed to back pain, and to present a summary of the estimated cost burden. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched to identify COI studies of back pain published in English up to February 2021. A total of 1,588 abstracts were screened, and 55 full-text studies were subsequently reviewed. After applying the inclusion criteria, 45 studies pertaining to the direct and indirect costs of back pain were analysed. RESULTS: The studies reported data on 15 industrialised countries. The national cost estimates of back pain in 2015 USD ranged from $259 million ($29.1 per capita) in Sweden to $71.6 billion ($868.4 per capita) in Germany. There was high heterogeneity among the studies in terms of the methodologies used for analysis and the resulting costs reported. Most of the studies assessed costs from a societal perspective (n = 29). The magnitude and accuracy of the reported costs were influenced by the case definition of back pain, the source of data used, the cost components included and the analysis method. Among the studies that provided both direct and indirect cost estimates (n = 15), indirect costs resulting from lost or reduced work productivity far outweighed the direct costs. CONCLUSION: Back pain imposes substantial economic burden on society. This review demonstrated that existing published COI studies of back pain used heterogeneous approaches reflecting a lack of consensus on methodology. A standardised methodological approach is required to increase credibility of the findings of COI studies and improve comparison of estimates across studies.

Calculating the economic burden of presumed microbial keratitis admissions at a tertiary referral centre in the UK.

PURPOSE: Microbial keratitis (MK) is the most common non-surgical ophthalmic emergency admission in the UK. However, few prospective health-economic studies of MK have been performed, and no specific healthcare resources group (HRG) code exists. This study is designed to determine the feasibility of a data collection tool derived from the microbiology ophthalmology group (MOG) clinical record form, to enable quantification of direct costs of inpatient care, as well as prospective capture of epidemiological data relating to outcomes of MK. METHODS: Clinical, demographic and economic data were collected retrospectively between January and December 2013 for 101 consecutive patients admitted with MK, using an adaption of the MOG toolset. The direct cost of admission (COA) was calculated using national reference costs and compared to actual income to generate profit/deficit profiles for individual patients. Indices of multiple deprivation were used to assess effect of deprivation on the COA. RESULTS: The total income generated through discharge coding was £252,116, compared to a COA of £357,075, yielding a deficit of £104,960 (median: £754 per patient). The cost deficit increased significantly with length of stay (LOS, p < 0.001), whilst patients with short LOS were income generators; cost neutrality occurred at 4.8 days. Greater socioeconomic deprivation was also associated with a significantly higher cost deficit. CONCLUSION: LOS is the key driver for COA of care for MK admissions. Protocols should encourage discharge of patients who are able to self-administer treatment after the sterilisation phase. The MOG-derived data collection toolset captures pertinent clinical data for quantification of COA. Further development into a multiuser and multisite platform is required for robust prospective testing, together with expansion to capture indirect costs of disease burden, including impact of treatment, visual morbidity and quality of life.

Economic Burden of Road Traffic Injuries in Nepal.

The evidence of the economic burden of road traffic injuries (RTIs) in Nepal is limited. The most recent study, conducted in 2008, is now considered outdated because there has been a rapid increase in vehicle numbers and extensive road building over the last decade. This study estimated the current economic costs of RTIs in Nepal, including the direct costs, productivity costs, and valuation of pain, grief, and suffering. An incidence-based cost-of-illness analysis was conducted from a societal perspective, employing a bottom-up approach using secondary data. All costs incurred by the patients, their family members, and costs to society were estimated, with sensitivity analyses to consider uncertainty around the data estimates available. Productivity loss was valued using the human capital approach. The total costs of RTIs in 2017 were estimated at USD 122.88 million. Of these, the costs of productivity loss were USD 91.57 million (74.52%) and the pain, grief, and suffering costs were USD 18.31 million (14.90%). The direct non-medical costs were USD 11.50 million (9.36%) whereas the direct medical costs were USD 1.50 million (1.22%). The economic costs of RTIs increased by threefold since 2007 and are equivalent to 1.52% of the gross national product, indicating the growing national financial burden associated with preventable RTIs.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. DESIGN: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. FUTURE WORK: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sciatica is pain that spreads into the leg because of a trapped nerve in the lower back. It can be a very painful condition that affects everyday life and ability to work. People with sciatica usually see their general practitioner first; if they do not get better over time, they may be referred to a physiotherapist or, eventually, to a spinal specialist. It is difficult to know which sciatica patient will do well without much treatment and who might need to see a physiotherapist or spinal specialist sooner. Stratified care is an approach aiming to help decide, early on, which patients need to see which health professionals. It has previously been shown to be helpful for patients with lower-back pain. In a trial of 476 patients with sciatica a stratified care model was tested to see if it led to faster improvements in sciatica-related leg pain, when compared with usual care. Adults seeing their general practitioner with sciatica were invited to attend a research clinic. Those willing to take part were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care. Patients in the stratified care arm were referred either to physiotherapy for a short or a longer course of treatment, or to undergo magnetic resonance imaging and see a spinal specialist with the magnetic resonance imaging results within 4 weeks. Pain, function and quality-of-life data were collected over 12 months using text messages and questionnaires. Although patients in the stratified care arm improved slightly more quickly (2 weeks, on average), we did not find convincing evidence that stratified care led to better results than usual care. On average, most patients in both trial arms improved in a similar way over 12 months. The stratified care model tested in this trial did not lead to faster recovery for patients with sciatica than usual care.

Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care. METHODS: We did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care. INTERPRETATION: The stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Cost-utility analysis of interventions to improve effectiveness of exercise therapy for adults with knee osteoarthritis: the BEEP trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of enhancing physical therapy exercise programmes in order to improve outcomes for patients with knee OA remains unclear. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of two enhanced physical therapy interventions compared with usual physical therapy care (UC) for adults with knee OA. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of individually tailored exercise (ITE) or targeted exercise adherence (TEA) compared with UC was undertaken over a period of 18 months. Patient-level costs were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a base-case UK health-care perspective. RESULTS: The UC group was associated with lower National Health Service (NHS) costs [ITE-UC: £273.30, 95% CI: £-62.10 to £562.60; TEA-UC: £141.80, 95% CI: £-135.60 to £408.10)] and slightly higher QALY gains (ITE-UC: -0.015, 95% CI: -0.057 to 0.026; TEA-UC: -0.003, 95% CI: -0.045 to 0.038). In the base case, UC was the most likely cost-effective option (probability <40% of ITE or TEA cost-effective at £20 000/QALY). Differences in total costs were attributable to intervention costs, number of visits to NHS consultants and knee surgery, which were higher in both ITE and TEA groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first economic evaluation comparing usual physical therapy care vs enhanced exercise interventions for knee OA that involves greater exercise individualization, supervision and progression or that focuses on exercise and physical activity adherence over the longer term. Our findings show that UC is likely to be the most cost-effective option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 93634563. TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/254 doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-254.

Effectiveness and costs of a vocational advice service to improve work outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a cluster randomised trial (SWAP trial ISRCTN 52269669).

Musculoskeletal pain is a common cause of work absence, and early intervention is advocated to prevent the adverse health and economic consequences of longer-term absence. This cluster randomised controlled trial investigated the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into primary care to provide occupational support. Six general practices were randomised; patients were eligible if they were consulting their general practitioner with musculoskeletal pain and were employed and struggling at work or absent from work <6 months. Practices in the intervention arm could refer patients to a vocational advisor embedded within the practice providing a case-managed stepwise intervention addressing obstacles to working. The primary outcome was number of days off work, over 4 months. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 158) had fewer days work absence compared with the control arm (n = 180) (mean 9.3 [SD 21·7] vs 14·4 [SD 27·7]) days, incidence rate ratio 0·51 (95% confidence interval 0·26, 0·99), P = 0·048). The net societal benefit of the intervention compared with best care was £733: £748 gain (work absence) vs £15 loss (health care costs). The addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients consulting with musculoskeletal pain led to reduced absence and cost savings for society. If a similar early intervention to the one tested in this trial was implemented widely, it could potentially reduce days absent over 12 months by 16%, equating to an overall societal cost saving of approximately £500 million (US $6 billion) and requiring an investment of only £10 million.