A consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model. METHODS: The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question. RESULTS: The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

Expert opinion on a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies: qualitative interviews.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored experts' views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts' perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools. METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements. CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

Rapid intrapartum test for maternal group B streptococcal colonisation and its effect on antibiotic use in labouring women with risk factors for early-onset neonatal infection (GBS2): cluster randomised trial with nested test accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Mother-to-baby transmission of group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the main cause of early-onset infection. We evaluated whether, in women with clinical risk factors for early neonatal infection, the use of point-of-care rapid intrapartum test to detect maternal GBS colonisation reduces maternal antibiotic exposure compared with usual care, where antibiotics are administered due to those risk factors. We assessed the accuracy of the rapid test in diagnosing maternal GBS colonisation, against the reference standard of selective enrichment culture. METHODS: We undertook a parallel-group cluster randomised trial, with nested test accuracy study and microbiological sub-study. UK maternity units were randomised to a strategy of rapid test (GeneXpert GBS system, Cepheid) or usual care. Within units assigned to rapid testing, vaginal-rectal swabs were taken from women with risk factors for vertical GBS transmission in established term labour. The trial primary outcome was the proportion of women receiving intrapartum antibiotics to prevent neonatal early-onset GBS infection. The accuracy of the rapid test was compared against the standard of selective enrichment culture in diagnosing maternal GBS colonisation. Antibiotic resistance profiles were determined in paired maternal and infant samples. RESULTS: Twenty-two maternity units were randomised and 20 were recruited. A total of 722 mothers (749 babies) participated in rapid test units; 906 mothers (951 babies) were in usual care units. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.64) between the rapid test (41%, 297/716) and usual care (36%, 328/906) units. No serious adverse events were reported. The sensitivity and specificity measures of the rapid test were 86% (95% CI 81 to 91%) and 89% (95% CI 85 to 92%), respectively. Babies born to mothers who carried antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli were more likely to be colonised with antibiotic-resistant strains than those born to mothers with antibiotic-susceptible E. coli. CONCLUSION: The use of intrapartum rapid test to diagnose maternal GBS colonisation did not reduce the rates of antibiotics administered for preventing neonatal early-onset GBS infection than usual care, although with considerable uncertainty. The accuracy of the rapid test is within acceptable limits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74746075 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2015.

Are intersectoral costs considered in economic evaluations of interventions relating to sexually transmitted infections (STIs)? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) not only have an impact on the health sector but also the private resources of those affected, their families and other sectors of society (i.e. labour, education). This study aimed to i) review and identify economic evaluations of interventions relating to STIs, which aimed to include a societal perspective; ii) analyse the intersectoral costs (i.e. costs broader than healthcare) included; iii) categorise these costs by sector; and iv) assess the impact of intersectoral costs on the overall study results. METHODS: Seven databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit and NHS EED. Key search terms included terms for economic evaluation, STIs and specific infections. This review considered trial- and model-based economic evaluations conducted in an OECD member country. Studies were included that assessed intersectoral costs. Intersectoral costs were extracted and categorised by sector using Drummond's cost classification scheme (i.e. patient/family, productivity, costs in other sectors). A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies qualified for data extraction and narrative synthesis. Twenty-eight studies applied a societal perspective of which 8 additionally adopted a healthcare or payer perspective, or both. One study used a modified payer perspective. The following sectors were identified: patient/family, informal care, paid labour (productivity), non-paid opportunity costs, education, and consumption. Patient/family costs were captured in 11 studies and included patient time, travel expenses, out-of-pocket costs and premature burial costs. Informal caregiver support (non-family) and unpaid help by family/friends was captured in three studies. Paid labour losses were assessed in all but three studies. Three studies also captured the costs and inability to perform non-paid work. Educational costs and future non-health consumption costs were each captured in one study. The inclusion of intersectoral costs resulted in more favourable cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that economic evaluations of interventions relating to STIs that adopt a societal perspective tend to be limited in scope. There is an urgent need for economic evaluations to be more comprehensive in order to allow policy/decision-makers to make better-informed decisions.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Intersectoral costs of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV: a systematic review of cost-of-illness (COI) studies.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV can generate costs both within and outside the health sector (i.e. intersectoral costs). This systematic review aims (i) to explore the intersectoral costs associated with STIs and HIV considered in cost-of-illness (COI) studies, (ii) to categorise and analyse these costs according to cost sectors, and (iii) to illustrate the impact of intersectoral costs on the total cost burden. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit and NHS EED were searched between 2009 and 2019. Key search terms included terms for cost-of-illness, cost analysis and all terms for STIs including specific infections. Studies were included that assessed intersectoral costs. A standardised data extraction form was adopted. A cost component table was established based on pre-defined sector-specific classification schemes. Cost results for intersectoral costs were recorded. The quality of studies was assessed using a modified version of the CHEC-list. RESULTS: 75 COI studies were considered for title/abstract screening. Only six studies were available in full-text and eligible for data extraction and narrative synthesis. Intersectoral costs were captured in the following sectors: Patient & family, Informal care and Productivity (Paid Labour). Patient & family costs were addressed in four studies, including patient out-of-pocket payments/co-payments and travel costs. Informal care costs including unpaid (home) care support by family/friends and other caregiver costs were considered in three studies. All six studies estimated productivity costs for paid labour including costs in terms of absenteeism, disability, cease-to-work, presenteeism and premature death. Intersectoral costs largely contributed to the total economic cost burden of STIs and HIV. The quality assessment revealed methodological differences. CONCLUSIONS: It is evident that intersectoral costs associated with STIs and HIV are substantial. If relevant intersectoral costs are not included in cost analyses the total cost burden of STIs and HIV to society is severely underestimated. Therefore, intersectoral costs need to be addressed in order to ensure the total economic burden of STIs and HIV on society is assessed, and communicated to policy/decision-makers.

The broader societal impacts of COVID-19 and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses.

AbstractThe rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected societies worldwide, leading to excess mortality, long-lasting health consequences, strained healthcare systems, and additional strains and spillover effects on other sectors outside health (i.e., intersectoral costs and benefits). In this perspective piece, we demonstrate the broader societal impacts of COVID-19 on other sectors outside the health sector and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses. These broader impacts include, for instance, the effects on the labor market and productivity, education, criminal justice, housing, consumption, and environment. The current pandemic highlights the importance of adopting a societal perspective to consider these broader impacts of public health issues and interventions and only omit these where it can be clearly justified as appropriate to do so. Furthermore, we explain how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing deep-rooted structural inequalities that contribute to the wider societal impacts of the pandemic.

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS: G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. FINDINGS: Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group). INTERPRETATION: Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence.

Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of internet-based training for primary care clinicians on antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Europe.

Objectives: Overprescribing of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) is seen as a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Training in communication skills and C-reactive protein (CRP) testing both appear effective in reducing such prescribing. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) of: (i) training GPs in the use of CRP testing; (ii) training GPs in communication skills; and (iii) training GPs in both CRP testing and communication skills. Methods: Economic analyses [cost-utility analysis (CUA) accounting for the cost of antibiotic resistance and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)] were both conducted from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 28 days alongside a multinational, cluster, randomized, factorial controlled trial in patients with respiratory tract infections in five European countries. The primary outcome measures were QALYs and percentage reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Hierarchical modelling was used to estimate an incremental cost per QALY gained and an incremental cost per percentage reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Results: Overall, the results of both the CUA and CEA showed that training in communication skills is the most cost-effective option. However, excluding the cost of antibiotic resistance in the CUA resulted in usual care being the most cost-effective option. Country-specific results from the CUA showed that training in communication skills was cost-effective in Belgium, UK and Netherlands whilst training in CRP was cost-effective in Poland. Conclusions: Internet-based training in communication skills is a cost-effective intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care if the cost of antibiotic resistance is accounted for.