RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We conducted a health economic sub-study within a feasibility RCT comparing a non-operative treatment pathway as an alternative to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. The objectives were to understand and assess data collection tools and methods and to determine indicative costs and benefits assessing the feasibility of conducting a full economic evaluation within the definitive trial. METHODS: We compared different methods of estimating treatment costs including micro-costing, hospital administrative data (PLICS) and health system (NHS) reference costs. We compared two different HRQoL instruments (CHU-9D and EQ-5D-5L) in terms of data completeness and sensitivity to change over time, including potential ceiling effects. We also explored how the timing of data collection and duration of the analysis could affect QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and the results of the cost-utility analysis (CUA) within the future RCT. RESULTS: Using a micro-costing approach, the total per treatment costs were in alignment with hospital administrative data (PLICS). Average health system reference cost data (macro-costing using NHS costs) could potentially underestimate these treatment costs, particularly for non-operative treatment. Costs incurred following hospital discharge in the primary care setting were minimal, and limited family borne costs were reported by parents/carers. While both HRQoL instruments performed relatively well, our results highlight the problem of ceiling effect and the importance of the timing of data collection and the duration of the analysis in any future assessment using QALYs and CUA. CONCLUSIONS: We highlighted the importance of obtaining accurate individual-patient cost data when conducting economic evaluations. Our results suggest that timing of data collection and duration of the assessment are important considerations when evaluating cost-effectiveness and reporting cost per QALY. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435.
Assuntos
Apendicite , Humanos , Criança , Apendicite/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Análise de Custo-Efetividade , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). This is a multi-centre three-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial conducted in National Health Service Trusts. The participants included in this study were preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP)-12-week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY)-12-week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems were the interventions. Primary outcome-Parent ratings of child's ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire-SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes-teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputations). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [mean difference - 0.009 95% CI (- 0.191, 0.173), p = 0.921] or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [- 0.189 95% CI (- 0.380, 0.003), p = 0.053]. NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct problems compared to TAU across scales (p values < 0.05). No significant benefits of IY over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP, ADHD symptoms [- 0.16 95% CI (- 0.37, 0.04), p = 0.121] or parent-rated conduct problems (p > 0.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1591 versus £2103). Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches.
Assuntos
Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade/terapia , Terapia Familiar/métodos , Poder Familiar , Pais/educação , Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade/diagnóstico , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pais/psicologia , Comportamento Problema , Inquéritos e Questionários , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Preschool hyperactivity is an early risk factor for adult mental health problems and criminality. Little is known about; (a) the patterns of long-term service costs associated with this behavioural marker in the general population and (b) the specific factors predicting hyperactivity-related costs. We undertook a prospective study investigating associations between preschool hyperactivity and average individual annual service costs up to late adolescent and young adulthood. METHODS: One-hundred and seventy individuals rated as hyperactive by their parents and 88 nonhyperactive controls were identified from a community sample of 4,215 three years olds. Baseline information about behaviour/emotional problems and background characteristics were collected. At follow-up (when individuals were aged between 14 and 25 years) information was obtained on service use, and associated costs since the age of three. Based on this information we calculated the average cost per annum incurred by each individual. RESULTS: Compared to controls, preschoolers with hyperactivity had 17.6 times higher average costs per annum across domains (apart from nonmental health costs). These were £562 for each hyperactive individual compared with £30 for controls. Average annual costs decreased as a function of age, with higher costs incurred at younger ages. The effects of hyperactivity remained significant when other baseline factors were added to the model. Effects were fully mediated by later psychiatric morbidity. When the hyperactive group were examined separately, costs were consistently predicted by male gender and, for some cost codes, by conduct problems. CONCLUSIONS: Preventative approaches targeting early hyperactivity may be of value. Services should be targeted towards high-risk individuals with careful consideration given to the cost-to-benefit trade-off of early intervention strategies.
Assuntos
Transtornos de Deficit da Atenção e do Comportamento Disruptivo/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Transtornos de Deficit da Atenção e do Comportamento Disruptivo/epidemiologia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Inglaterra/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Fatores Sexuais , Adulto JovemRESUMO
While non-operative treatment has emerged as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, comparative patient-centred outcomes are not well documented. We investigated these in a feasibility randomised trial. Of 57 randomised participants, data were available for 26. Compared with appendicectomy, children allocated to non-operative treatment reported higher short-term quality of life scores, shorter duration of requiring analgesia, more rapid return to normal activities and shorter parental absence from work. These preliminary data suggest differences exist in recovery profile and quality of life between these treatments that are important to measure in a larger RCT. Trial registration number is ISRCTN15830435.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Apendicite , Criança , Humanos , Doença Aguda , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Apendicectomia , Apendicite/cirurgia , Apendicite/tratamento farmacológico , Manejo da Dor , Qualidade de Vida , Estudos de ViabilidadeRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Physical rehabilitation delivered early following admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has the potential to improve short-term and long-term outcomes. The use of supine cycling together with other rehabilitation techniques has potential as a method of introducing rehabilitation earlier in the patient journey. The aim of the study is to determine the feasibility of delivering the designed protocol of a randomised clinical trial comparing a protocolised early rehabilitation programme including cycling with usual care. This feasibility study will inform a larger multicentre study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 90 acute care medical patients from two mixed medical-surgical ICUs will be recruited. We will include ventilated patients within 72 hours of initiation of mechanical ventilation and expected to be ventilated a further 48 hours or more. Patients will receive usual care or usual care plus two 30 min rehabilitation sessions 5 days/week.Feasibility outcomes are (1) recruitment of one to two patients per month per site; (2) protocol fidelity with >75% of patients commencing interventions within 72 hours of mechanical ventilation, with >70% interventions delivered; and (3) blinded outcome measures recorded at three time points in >80% of patients. Secondary outcomes are (1) strength and function, the Physical Function ICU Test-scored measured on ICU discharge; (2) hospital length of stay; and (3) mental health and physical ability at 3 months using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2. An economic analysis using hospital health services data reported with an embedded health economic study will collect and assess economic and quality of life data including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales core, the Euroqol-5 Dimension-5 Level and the Impact of Event Score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval from the South Central Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0016). All amendments will be approved by this committee. An independent trial monitoring committee is overseeing the study. Results will be made available to critical care survivors, their caregivers, the critical care societies and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03771014.
Assuntos
Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Qualidade de Vida , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Respiração ArtificialRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To establish the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. DESIGN: Feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study to inform recruiter training to optimise recruitment and the design of a future definitive trial. SETTING: Three specialist paediatric surgery centres in the UK. PATIENTS: Children (aged 4-15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. INTERVENTIONS: Appendicectomy or a non-operative treatment pathway (comprising broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited. Secondary outcomes evaluated adherence to interventions, data collection during follow-up, safety of treatment pathways and clinical course. RESULTS: Fifty per cent of eligible participants (95% CI 40 to 59) approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. Repeated bespoke recruiter training was associated with an increase in recruitment rate over the course of the trial from 38% to 72%. There was high acceptance of randomisation, good patient and surgeon adherence to trial procedures and satisfactory completion of follow-up. Although more participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated, treatment pathways were found to be safe and adverse event profiles acceptable. CONCLUSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15830435.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, randomised trial data comparing important outcomes of non-operative treatment with those of appendicectomy are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study, which included a feasibility randomised controlled trial, embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies, a parallel health economic feasibility study and the development of a core outcome set. SETTING: This study was set in three specialist NHS paediatric surgical units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility randomised controlled trial. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other health-care professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK specialist paediatric surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist paediatric surgeons, adult general surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis, along with their families, took part in the development of the core outcome set. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the feasibility randomised controlled trial were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from NHS case notes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio-recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Overall, 50% (95% confidence interval 40% to 59%) of 115 eligible patients approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow-up rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months, respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated. Qualitative work enabled us to communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families, to design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment and to understand how to optimise the design and delivery of a future trial. The health economic study indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation; it has also informed quality-of-life assessment methods for future work. A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes. There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial, with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol. LIMITATIONS: Because the feasibility randomised controlled trial was performed in only three centres, successful recruitment across a larger number of sites cannot be guaranteed. However, the qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: A future effectiveness trial is feasible, following limited additional preparation, to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. It is recommended to include a limited package of qualitative work to optimise recruitment, in particular at new centres. FUTURE WORK: Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial, there is a need to develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis, and to reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435. 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. 25, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Appendicitis is usually treated with an operation to remove the appendix. But we have learned, from other research, that some children with appendicitis may not need an operation, and could be treated with antibiotics instead. To find out how these two different treatments compare with one another, we need to do a big study. First, though, we need to see if doing that kind of study would even be possible (or 'feasible'). We carried out a feasibility study that had several parts. First, we did a small study with children who had appendicitis, whereby children were randomly allocated to have either antibiotics or an operation, with an equal chance of having either treatment. Second, we asked parents and health-care staff about why they wanted, or did not want, to take part in that small study. This helped us to understand how to make a bigger future study as acceptable as possible to children, families and surgeons. Third, we asked parents, patients and surgeons what they think are the most important things or 'outcomes' we should look at in future research on children who have appendicitis. From that, we developed a list of outcomes that should be included in our future big study, so we can be certain that the research we do is likely to help parents and surgeons. Overall, we established that a future big study is feasible and we have plenty of information to help us with how to plan it best, so that it has the greatest possible chance of success. We were also guided in all of these steps of the research by a group of parents, children and young people, some of whom had appendicitis and some of whom did not.
Assuntos
Apendicite , Adolescente , Adulto , Apendicite/tratamento farmacológico , Apendicite/cirurgia , Criança , Tratamento Conservador , Análise Custo-Benefício , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reino UnidoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pregnancies in women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are associated with a higher risk of sickle and pregnancy complications. Limited options exist for treating SCD during pregnancy. Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion (SPEBT) has been shown to be effective in treating SCD outside pregnancy, but evidence is lacking regarding its use during pregnancy. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a future phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of SPEBT in pregnant women with SCD. METHODS: The study is an individually randomised, two-arm, feasibility trial with embedded qualitative and health economic studies. Fifty women, 18 years of age and older, with SCD and a singleton pregnancy at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation will be recruited from six hospitals in England. Randomisation will be conducted using a secure online database and minimised by centre, SCD genotype and maternal age. Women allocated to the intervention arm will receive SPEBT commencing at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation, performed using automated erythrocytapheresis every 6-10 weeks until the end of pregnancy, aiming to maintain HbS% or combined HbS/HbC% below 30%. Women in the standard care arm will only receive transfusion when clinically indicated. The primary outcome will be the recruitment rate. Additional endpoints include reasons for refusal to participate, attrition rate, protocol adherence, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Women will be monitored throughout pregnancy to assess maternal, sickle, and foetal complications. Detailed information about adverse events (including hospital admission) and birth outcomes will be extracted from medical records and via interview at 6 weeks postpartum. An embedded qualitative study will consist of interviews with (a) 15-25 trial participants to assess experiences and acceptability, (b) 5-15 women who decline to participate to identify barriers to recruitment and (c) 15-20 clinical staff to explore fidelity and acceptability. A health economic study will inform a future cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study aims to rigorously evaluate SPEBT as a treatment for SCD in pregnancy and its impact on maternal and infant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov), registration number NCT03975894 (registered 05/06/19); ISRCTN (www.isrctn.com), registration number ISRCTN52684446 (retrospectively registered 02/08/19).
Assuntos
Anemia Falciforme/terapia , Transfusão de Sangue/métodos , Complicações na Gravidez/terapia , Cuidado Pré-Natal/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Transfusão de Sangue/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Inglaterra , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Gravidez , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Adulto JovemRESUMO
DESIGN: This randomised crossover trial compared nocturnal auto-adjusting continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) and nocturnal oxygen therapy (NOT) in adults and children with sickle cell anaemia, with patient acceptability as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary physiology (adults), safety, and daily pain during interventions and washout documented using tablet technology. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age > 8 years and the ability to use an iPad to collect daily pain data. Trial participation was 4 weeks; week 1 involved baseline data collection and week 3 was a washout between interventions, which were administered for 7 days each during weeks 2 and 4 in a randomised order. Qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed for content using a funnelling technique, starting generally and then gaining more detailed information on the experience of both interventions. Safety data included routine haematology and median pain days between each period. Missing pain day values were replaced using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Ten adults (three female, median age 30.2 years, range 18-51.5 years) and eleven children (five female, median age 12 years, range 8.7-16.9 years) enrolled. Nine adults and seven children completed interviews. Qualitative data revealed that the APAP machine was smaller, easier to handle, and less noisy. Of 16 participants, 10 preferred APAP (62.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 38.6-81.5%). Haemoglobin decreased from baseline on APAP and NOT (mean difference -3.2 g/L (95% CI -6.0 to -0.2 g/L) and -2.5 g/L (95% CI -4.6 to 0.3 g/L), respectively), but there was no significant difference between interventions (NOT versus APAP, 1.1 (-1.2 to 3.6)). Pulmonary function changed little. Compared with baseline, there were significant decreases in the median number of pain days (1.58 for APAP and 1.71 for NOT) but no significant difference comparing washout with baseline. After adjustment for carry-over and period effects, there was a non-significant median difference of 0.143 (95% CI -0.116 to 0.401) days additional pain with APAP compared with NOT. CONCLUSION: In view of the point estimate of patient preference for APAP, and no difference in haematology or pulmonary function or evidence that pain was worse during or in washout after APAP, it was decided to proceed with a Phase II trial of 6 months APAP versus standard care with further safety monitoring for bone marrow suppression and pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46078697 . Registered on 18 July 2014.
Assuntos
Anemia Falciforme/terapia , Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas/métodos , Pulmão/fisiopatologia , Oxigenoterapia/métodos , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/terapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Anemia Falciforme/diagnóstico , Anemia Falciforme/fisiopatologia , Criança , Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas/efeitos adversos , Estudos Cross-Over , Feminino , Humanos , Londres , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Oxigenoterapia/efeitos adversos , Dor/etiologia , Preferência do Paciente , Projetos Piloto , Qualidade de Vida , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/diagnóstico , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/fisiopatologia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common acute surgical emergencies in children and accounts for an annual cost of approximately £50 million to the National Health Service. Investigating alternative treatment options offers the best prospect of enhancing the quality of care for patients and potential opportunities for cost savings through better allocative efficiency. A feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis is underway (CONTRACT feasibility RCT). AIMS: The prime objective of this economic substudy conducted alongside the CONTRACT feasibility RCT is to better understand and assess: (1) cost data collection tools and cost drivers by identifying patients' pathways and (2) patient quality of life by assessing alternative paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. Outcomes from this study will inform a future efficacy RCT assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-operative treatment pathway for the treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. METHODS: The economic substudy will use individual-level data and will be conducted from the health system perspective over the study's 6-month follow-up period. Microcosting will include health resource and service use, while potential benefits acquired will be measured using the HRQoL measures, Child Health Utility 9D (CHU-9D) and Euroqol-5 dimensions and 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L). We will assess the appropriateness of using the cost per quality-adjusted life year framework in the future RCT, as well as testing and identifying the most suitable HRQoL instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the investigational economic substudy will be used to inform the design of our future definitive RCT. However, the result from this economic study will also provide a detailed description and account of the issues inherent in paediatric Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials with an emphasis on costing methods of interventions taking place in secondary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN1583043.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects in adolescence of bilateral permanent childhood hearing loss (PCHL) > 40 dB and of exposure to universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) on societal costs accrued over the preceding 12 months. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS: An observational cohort study of a sample of 110 adolescents aged 13-20 years, 73 with PCHL and 37 in a normally hearing comparison group (HCG) closely similar in respect of place and date of birth to those with PCHL, drawn from a 1992-1997 cohort of 157 000 births in Southern England, half of whom had been exposed to a UNHS programme. INTERVENTION: Birth in periods with and without UNHS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Resource use and costs in the preceding 12-month period, estimated from interview at a mean age of 16.9 years and review of medical records. Effects on costs were examined in regression models. RESULTS: Mean total costs for participants with PCHL and the HCG were £15 914 and £5883, respectively (difference £10 031, 95% CI £6460 to £13 603), primarily driven by a difference in educational costs. Compared with the HCG, additional mean costs associated with PCHL of moderate, severe and profound severity were £5916, £6605 and £18 437, respectively. The presence of PCHL and an additional medical condition (AMC) increased costs by £15 385 (95% CI £8532 to £22 238). An increase of one unit in receptive language z-score was associated with £1616 (95% CI £842 to £2389) lower costs. Birth during periods of UNHS was not associated with significantly lower overall costs (difference £3594, 95% CI -£2918 to £10 106). CONCLUSIONS: The societal cost of PCHL was greater with more severe losses and in the presence of AMC and was lower in children with superior language scores. There was no statistically significant reduction in costs associated with birth in periods with UNHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN03307358, pre-results.
RESUMO
As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of reslizumab (Teva) submitted evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids. NICE commissioned Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC) as an independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) to provide a critique of the manufacturer's submitted evidence. Reslizumab is compared with best standard of care and omalizumab, for a small 'overlap' population of patients who have both eosinophilic and IgE-mediated severe asthma. This paper provides a summary of the ERG's review of the manufacturer's submission, and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (issued in August 2017). The ERG considered that there were limitations in the approach proposed by the manufacturer for the exacerbation rate and the utility for severe exacerbation. The company amended their initial analysis, following comments from the ERG and the NICE committee, whereby the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £29,870 per QALY gained for reslizumab compared with best standard care. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) concluded that reslizumab was recommended as an option for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma that is inadequately controlled in adults despite maintenance therapy with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another drug, only if (1) the blood eosinophil count has been recorded as 400 cells per microlitre or more and (2) the patient has had three or more asthma exacerbations in the past 12 months, and (3) the company provides reslizumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/economia , Asma/economia , Eosinofilia/economia , Administração por Inalação , Corticosteroides/administração & dosagem , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Asma/complicações , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Resistência a Medicamentos , Eosinofilia/complicações , Humanos , Omalizumab/uso terapêutico , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Avaliação da Tecnologia BiomédicaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures in clinical trials ensure that evaluations of effectiveness focus on outcomes that are important to patients. In relapsing-remitting conditions, such as eczema, repeated measurements may allow a more accurate reflection of disease burden and treatment effect than less frequent measurements. We asked parents/carers of children with eczema taking part in a trial of bath emollients to complete weekly questionnaires for 16 weeks. METHODS: The objective of this study was to determine the acceptability and practicality of collecting weekly measures of eczema severity online for 16 weeks in children aged 1 to 11 years as part of the BATHE study. BATHE randomised patients to bath emollients plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care only. The primary outcome was eczema severity, measured by the seven-item Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) repeated weekly for 16 weeks. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews with 10 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Practicality was assessed by exploring the completeness of the data and keeping a log of any problems. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-two participants were recruited to the trial and 429 opted to complete measures online (89.0%). Data were collected online for 83% of time points over the 16-week period and there was no association between socio-demographic characteristics and data completeness. Two hundred and six (48%) completed their weekly data every week for 16 weeks and 341 (79%) completed it at least 80% of the time. The mean number of weeks completed was 13.3 out of 16 (SD 4.2). Interviewees said that they understood the rationale behind weekly collection and some welcomed this as it helped them realise how their child's eczema changed weekly. Whilst some interviewees spoke of weekly questionnaires as onerous, others said that they found them quick and easy. Reminders were welcomed. Parents/carers seemed happy to receive telephone reminders and it was sometimes useful for eliciting problems relating to obtaining trial medication or password problems for online data collection. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst this population, high levels of data completeness suggests that weekly completion of the online questionnaire appears to be acceptable and feasible over a 16-week period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN84102309 . Registered on 9 December 2013.
Assuntos
Banhos/métodos , Coleta de Dados , Eczema/terapia , Emolientes/administração & dosagem , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Banhos/efeitos adversos , Cuidadores/psicologia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Eczema/diagnóstico , Emolientes/efeitos adversos , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Pais/psicologia , Recidiva , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Reino UnidoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: Ninety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding. RESULTS: From December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group, n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping. LIMITATIONS: Simple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. CONCLUSION: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Assuntos
Banhos/métodos , Eczema/tratamento farmacológico , Emolientes/economia , Emolientes/uso terapêutico , Corticosteroides/administração & dosagem , Inibidores de Calcineurina/administração & dosagem , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Análise Custo-Benefício , Emolientes/administração & dosagem , Emolientes/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Gastos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Recursos em Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Adesão à Medicação , Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Reino UnidoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: 96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. RESULTS: 483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.
Assuntos
Banhos , Eczema/terapia , Emolientes/uso terapêutico , Pele/efeitos dos fármacos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Análise Custo-Benefício , Emolientes/farmacologia , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Padrão de Cuidado , Resultado do Tratamento , Reino UnidoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Currently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4-15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery. DISCUSSION: In this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15830435 . Registered on 8 February 2017.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Apendicite/terapia , Tratamento Conservador/métodos , Adolescente , Fatores Etários , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Antibacterianos/economia , Apendicectomia , Apendicite/diagnóstico , Apendicite/economia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Tratamento Conservador/efeitos adversos , Tratamento Conservador/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Inglaterra , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In addition to pain, sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) complications include neurocognitive difficulties in attention and processing speed associated with low daytime and night-time oxygen saturation compounded by obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In the general population OSA is treated with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP). The aim of this single-blind, randomised, controlled phase II trial is to compare auto-adjusting CPAP (APAP) with standard care to standard care alone in individuals with HbSS to determine whether the intervention improves attention and processing speed, brain structure, pain and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: Eligibility criteria include: ability to provide informed consent; age > 8 years; diagnosis of HbSS; and mean overnight saturation of < 90% for < 30% of the night (i.e. not meeting current criteria for overnight oxygen therapy). Key exclusion criteria are: overnight respiratory support; respiratory or decompensated cardiac failure; chronic transfusion; or contraindications to APAP therapy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Sixty individuals with HbSS (30 children and 30 adults) will be randomised to standard care + APAP or standard care alone for six months. Minimisation factors are: age group (8-11, 12-15, 16-22 and > 23 years); silent infarction on MRI; minimum overnight oxygen saturation > 90% or < 90%; and hydroxyurea use. For APAP individuals, the intervention is administered at home. Adherence and effectiveness are recorded using software documenting hours of use each night and overnight oximetry. Participant support in terms of appropriate facemask and facilitating adherence are provided by an unblinded sleep physiologist. The primary outcome is change in the cancellation subtest from the Wechsler scales. Secondary outcomes include general cognitive functioning, quantitative brain MRI, blood and urine chemistry, quality of life and daily pain via a smartphone App (GoMedSolutions, Inc) and, where possible MRI heart, echocardiography, and 6-min walk. These outcomes will be assessed at baseline and after six months of treatment by assessors blind to treatment assignment. DISCUSSION: Altering oxygen saturation in HbSS may lead to bone marrow suppression. This risk will be reduced by monitoring full blood counts at baseline, two weeks, three months and six months, providing treatment as appropriate and reporting as safety events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46012373 . Registered on 10 July 2015. Protocol Version: 6.0 Date: 24th December 2015 Sponsor: University Hospital Southampton. Sponsor's protocol code: RHMCHIOT53.
Assuntos
Anemia Falciforme/terapia , Encéfalo/fisiopatologia , Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas/métodos , Transtornos Neurocognitivos/terapia , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/terapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Anemia Falciforme/sangue , Anemia Falciforme/fisiopatologia , Anemia Falciforme/psicologia , Atenção , Automação , Criança , Ensaios Clínicos Fase II como Assunto , Cognição , Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Londres , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Transtornos Neurocognitivos/sangue , Transtornos Neurocognitivos/fisiopatologia , Transtornos Neurocognitivos/psicologia , Oximetria , Medição da Dor , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Método Simples-Cego , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/sangue , Apneia Obstrutiva do Sono/fisiopatologia , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Bath emollients are widely prescribed for childhood eczema, yet evidence of their benefits over direct application of emollients is lacking. Objectives To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding bath emollient to the standard management of eczema in children DESIGN: Pragmatic open 2-armed parallel group randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practitioner (GP) practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged over 12â months and less than 12â years with eczema, excluding inactive or very mild eczema (5 or less on Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale). INTERVENTIONS: Children will be randomised to either bath emollients plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care only. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome is long-term eczema severity, measured by the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) repeated weekly for 16â weeks. Secondary outcomes include: number of eczema exacerbations resulting in healthcare consultations over 1â year; eczema severity over 1â year; disease-specific and generic quality of life; medication use and healthcare resource use; cost-effectiveness. Aiming to detect a mean difference between groups of 2.0 (SD 7.0) in weekly POEM scores over 16â weeks (significance 0.05, power 0.9), allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, gives a total sample size of 423 children. We will use repeated measures analysis of covariance, or a mixed model, to analyse weekly POEM scores. We will control for possible confounders, including baseline eczema severity and child's age. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be carried out from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 NRES committee 14/NE/0098. Follow-up will be completed in 2017. Findings will be disseminated to participants and carers, the public, dermatology and primary care journals, guideline developers and decision-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84102309.
Assuntos
Banhos , Eczema/terapia , Emolientes/uso terapêutico , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Pele/efeitos dos fármacos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Protocolos Clínicos , Emolientes/farmacologia , Humanos , Lactente , Qualidade de Vida , Projetos de Pesquisa , Pele/patologia , Padrão de CuidadoRESUMO
The impact of living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is considerable and psychosocial support can be beneficial. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) can help self-management of anxiety, depression, quality of life (QoL), and fatigue and has been evaluated in early-stage breast cancer but not MBC. This study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of providing MBSR for women with MBC and of introducing MBSR into a National Health Service (NHS) setting. A mixed methods convergent design was used. Eligible women with MBC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0 to 2, stable disease, and life expectancy of at least 6 months were invited to attend (by their oncologist) an 8-week MBSR course. Qualitative interviews with patients, a focus group, and interview with NHS staff were held to explore acceptability and feasibility of MBSR. Questionnaires at baseline, during (weeks 4, 8), and after (weeks 16, 24) the course measured fatigue, anxiety and depression, mindfulness, disease-specific QoL, and generic preference based QoL. Of 100 women approached, 20 joined the study. One woman dropped out prior to the intervention due to illness progression. Nineteen women took part in 3 MBSR courses. Recruitment to 2 of the 3 courses was slow. Commitment to 8 weeks was a reason for non-participation, and proved challenging to participants during the course. Participants found the course acceptable and reported many cumulative and ongoing benefits. These included feeling less reactive to emotional distress and more accepting of the disruption to life that occurs with living with MBC. There was high attendance, completion of course sessions, adherence to home practice, excellent follow-up rates, and high questionnaire return rates. MBSR was acceptable to MBC patients, who perceived benefits such as improved anxiety and QoL; but the MBSR course requires a considerable time commitment. There is scope to tailor the intervention so that it is less intensive.