Prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: Economic evaluation of the novel butterfly device in a UK setting.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the cost-effectiveness of a novel PPH device as compared with usual care. DESIGN: A decision analytical model was used to explore the cost-effectiveness of the PPH Butterfly device compared with usual care. This was part of a United Kingdom, UK, clinical trial ISRCTN15452399 using a matched historical cohort who had standard PPH management without the use of the PPH Butterfly device. The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. SETTING: Liverpool Women's Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 57 women with 113 matched controls. INTERVENTION: The PPH Butterfly is a novel device that has been invented and developed in the UK to facilitate bimanual compression of the uterus in the treatment of PPH. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included healthcare costs, blood loss, and maternal morbidity events. RESULTS: Mean treatment costs in the Butterfly cohort were £3,459.66 as compared with standard care £3,223.93. Treatment with the Butterfly device resulted in decreased total blood loss in comparison with standard care. The Butterfly device had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,795.78 per PPH progression avoided (defined as ≤ 1000 ml additional blood loss from device insertion point). If the NHS is prepared to pay £8,500 per PPH progression avoided, then the Butterfly device is cost-effective with a probability of 87 percent. In the PPH Butterfly treatment arm there were 9% fewer cases of massive obstetric haemorrhage (severe PPH of more than 2000mls or more than 4 units of blood transfusion required) recorded as compared with the standard care historical cohort. As a low-cost device, the PPH Butterfly device is cost-effective but can be cost-saving to the NHS. CONCLUSION: The PPH pathway can result in high-cost resource use such as blood transfusion or high dependence unit hospital stays. The Butterfly device is a relative low-cost device in a UK NHS setting with a high probability of being cost-effective. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) can use this evidence in considering the adoption of innovative technologies such as the Butterfly device in the NHS. Extrapolation on an international scale to lower and middle-income countries could prevent mortality associated with PPH.

A mixed method, phase 2 clinical evaluation of a novel device to treat postpartum haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of a new device designed to facilitate uterine compression in women with postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). METHODS: A prospective, phase two clinical device trial with concurrent qualitative study, conducted in a UK consultant obstetric unit. The device was used in addition to standard care in women unresponsive to initial oxytocin therapy. The primary effectiveness outcome was additional blood loss of over 1000mls, whilst safety was assessed through adverse events. Interviews assessed device feasibility and acceptability, and were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: We recruited 57 women with clinical PPH after vaginal birth; 67% were primiparous and 47% had undergone operative birth. All but two (96%) had atony as a cause of the haemorrhage; in addition, 30% also had bleeding from lacerations and 11% had retained tissue. After device use, only one woman had additional blood loss over 1000mls, although 3 women (7%) needed a Bakri balloon and 14% received a blood transfusion. All but one clinician felt that the device was easy to use. Clinicians stated that the device assisted management in 85% of cases. All 56 women who responded stated that if they bled in a future birth they would want the device to be used again. There were no serious adverse events related to the device. However, 3 events were judged as 'possibly' being caused by the device - 2 minor vaginal grazes and one postnatal episiotomy infection and breakdown. Lax vaginal tissue complicated the use of the device in three women. In 47 interviews, participants, birth partners, clinician users and attending midwives viewed the device positively. Clinicians found it useful as a way of stopping blood loss and as an aid to diagnose the source of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The PPH Butterfly may provide a rapid, acceptable and effective treatment for postpartum haemorrhage. Clinical Trial Registration prospective with ISRCTN15452399 11/09/2017 (www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15452399).

When One Health Meets the United Nations Ocean Decade: Global Agendas as a Pathway to Promote Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research on Human-Nature Relationships.

Strong evidence shows that exposure and engagement with the natural world not only improve human wellbeing but can also help promote environmentally friendly behaviors. Human-nature relationships are at the heart of global agendas promoted by international organizations including the World Health Organization's (WHO) "One Health" and the United Nations (UN) "Ocean Decade." These agendas demand collaborative multisector interdisciplinary efforts at local, national, and global levels. However, while global agendas highlight global goals for a sustainable world, developing science that directly addresses these agendas from design through to delivery and outputs does not come without its challenges. In this article, we present the outcomes of international meetings between researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers from the United Kingdom and Brazil. We propose a model for interdisciplinary work under such global agendas, particularly the interface between One Health and the UN Ocean Decade and identify three priority research areas closely linked to each other: human-nature connection, conservation-human behavior, and implementation strategies (bringing stakeholders together). We also discuss a number of recommendations for moving forward.

Economic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of FlowOx home therapy compared to standard care in patients with peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Critical limb ischaemia is a severe stage of lower limb peripheral artery disease which can lead to tissue loss, gangrene, amputation and death. FlowOx™ therapy is a novel negative-pressure chamber system intended for home use to increase blood flow, reduce pain and improve wound healing for patients with peripheral artery disease and critical limb ischaemia. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of FlowOx™ therapy compared to standard care in lower limb peripheral artery disease patients with intermittent claudication or critical limb ischaemia. The model used data from two European trials of FlowOx™ therapy and published evidence on disease progression. From an NHS analysis perspective, various FlowOx™ therapy scenarios were modelled by adjusting the dose of FlowOx™ therapy and the amount of other care received alongside FlowOx™ therapy, in comparison to standard care. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, consisting of FlowOx™ therapy plus nominal care, the cost estimates were £12,704 for a single dose of FlowOx™ therapy per annum as compared with £15,523 for standard care. FlowOx™ therapy patients gained 0.27 additional quality adjusted life years compared to standard care patients. This equated to a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained. At the NICE threshold WTP of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, FlowOx™ therapy in addition to standard care had a 0.80 and 1.00 probability of being cost-effectiveness respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FlowOx™ therapy delivered as a single annual dose may be a cost-effective treatment for peripheral artery disease. FlowOx™ therapy improved health outcomes and reduced treatment costs in this modelled cohort. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FlowOx™ therapy is susceptible to disease severity, adherence, dose and treatment cost. Research assessing the impact of FlowOx™ therapy on NHS resource use is needed in order to provide a definitive economic evaluation.

Can a mindfulness-informed intervention reduce aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities? Protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10-20 % of adults with intellectual disabilities engage in challenging behaviours such as aggression, destructiveness, and self-injury, which are often accompanied by feelings of anger. The inability to manage anger can reduce quality of life. For example, aggression is a strong predictor of out-of-area placements and is a risk variable for abuse. Recent research suggests that mindfulness-based therapies (specifically, Singh's Soles of the Feet meditation) can help people with intellectual disabilities manage angry emotions, with resultant reductions in challenging behaviour. However, previous research has been single-case design studies, and no group studies have been published with people with intellectual disabilities and aggressive behaviour. METHODS/DESIGN: For this feasibility study, a UK protocol will be developed for use by health professionals within National Health Service (NHS) Intellectual Disability (ID) teams, based upon Singh's Soles of the Feet manual. Twenty adults with intellectual disabilities and identified problems with anger control will be recruited and six sessions will be delivered by a trained ID clinician. The study will monitor participant's aggressive behaviour, health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, and use of support services (medication, hospital appointments etc.). These will be measured at three time points: (1) Baseline (within 2 weeks prior to the first session of the intervention), (2) 2 months post-baseline, and (3) 6 months post-baseline. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants, their carers, and the therapists who delivered the intervention. In order to help design an economic evaluation alongside a future full trial, we will cost the intervention and test the acceptability and validity of health economics measures to record resource use and health-related quality of life outcomes. DISCUSSION: The data from this study will inform the feasibility of the project protocol and intervention, which will help develop future research and to determine whether a larger, randomised controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UKCERN: 16743.

High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity steady-state training in UK cardiac rehabilitation programmes (HIIT or MISS UK): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Current international guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) advocate moderate-intensity exercise training (MISS, moderate-intensity steady state). This recommendation predates significant advances in medical therapy for coronary heart disease (CHD) and may not be the most appropriate strategy for the 'modern' patient with CHD. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be a safe and effective alternative, resulting in greater improvements in peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak). To date, HIIT trials have predominantly been proof-of-concept studies in the laboratory setting and conducted outside the UK. The purpose of this multicentre randomised controlled trial is to compare the effects of HIIT and MISS training in patients with CHD attending UK CR programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic study will randomly allocate 510 patients with CHD to 8 weeks of twice weekly HIIT or MISS training at 3 centres in the UK. HIIT will consist of 10 high-intensity (85-90% peak power output (PPO)) and 10 low-intensity (20-25% PPO) intervals, each lasting 1 min. MISS training will follow usual care recommendations, adhering to currently accepted UK guidelines (ie, >20 min continuous exercise at 40-70% heart rate reserve). Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 8 weeks and 12 months. The primary outcome for the trial will be change in VO2 peak as determined by maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Secondary measures will assess physiological, psychosocial and economic outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol V.1.0, dated 1 February 2016, was approved by the NHS Health Research Authority, East Midlands-Leicester South Research Ethics Committee (16/EM/0079). Recruitment will start in August 2016 and will be completed in June 2018. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national and international scientific meetings and are expected to inform future national guidelines for exercise training in UK CR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02784873; pre-results.

Design of Economic Evaluations of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Ten Methodological Questions of Which to Be Mindful.

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are being increasingly applied in a variety of settings. A growing body of evidence to support the effectiveness of these interventions exists and there are a few published cost-effectiveness studies. With limited resources available within public sectors (health care, social care, and education), it is necessary to build in concurrent economic evaluations alongside trials in order to inform service commissioning and policy. If future research studies are well-designed, they have strong potential to investigate the economic impact of MBIs. The particular challenge to the health economist is how best to capture the ways that MBIs help people adjust to or build resilience to difficult life circumstances, and to disseminate effectively to enable policy makers to judge the value of the contribution that MBIs can make within the context of the limited resourcing of public services. In anticipation of more research worldwide evaluating MBIs in various settings, this article suggests ten health economics methodological design questions that researchers may want to consider prior to conducting MBI research. These questions draw on both published standards of good methodological practice in economic evaluation of medical interventions, and on the authors' knowledge and experience of mindfulness-based practice. We argue that it is helpful to view MBIs as both complex interventions and as public health prevention initiatives. Our suggestions for well-designed economic evaluations of MBIs in health and other settings, mirror current thinking on the challenges and opportunities of public health economics.