Secondary healthcare costs after mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction for women with breast cancer in England: population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy can improve the quality of life for women with breast cancer and rates are increasing. Long-term inpatient costs of care were estimated to understand the impact of different immediate breast reconstruction procedures on healthcare expenditure. METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data were used to identify women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction in English National Health Service hospitals (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2015) and any subsequent procedures performed to revise, replace, or complete the breast reconstruction. Costs were assigned to Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care data using the Healthcare Resource Group 2020/21 National Costs Grouper. Generalized linear models were used to estimate mean cumulative costs for five immediate breast reconstruction procedures over 3 and 8 years, adjusting for covariates (age/ethnicity/deprivation). RESULTS: A total of 16 890 women underwent mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction: implant (5192; 30.7 per cent), expander (2826; 16.7 per cent), autologous latissimus dorsi flap (2372; 14.0 per cent), latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant (3109; 18.4 per cent), and abdominal free-flap reconstruction (3391; 20.1 per cent). The mean (95 per cent c.i.) cumulative cost was lowest for latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant reconstruction (€20 103 (€19 582 to €20 625)) over 3 years and highest for abdominal free-flap reconstruction (€27 560 (€27 037 to €28 083)). Over 8 years, expander (€29 140 (€27 659 to €30 621)) and latissimus dorsi flap with expander/implant (€29 312 (€27 622 to €31 003)) reconstructions were the least expensive, while abdominal free-flap reconstruction (€34 536 (€32 958 to €36 113)) remained the most expensive, despite having lower costs for revisions and secondary reconstructions. This was driven primarily by the cost of the index procedure (€5435 (expander reconstruction) to €15 106 (abdominal free-flap reconstruction)). CONCLUSION: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care Healthcare Resource Group data provided a comprehensive longitudinal cost assessment of secondary care. Although abdominal free-flap reconstruction was the most expensive option, higher costs of the index procedure need to be balanced against ongoing long-term costs of revisions/secondary reconstructions, which are higher after implant-based procedures.

Interpersonal counselling versus perinatal-specific cognitive behavioural therapy for women with depression during pregnancy offered in routine psychological treatment services: a phase II randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to one in eight women experience depression during pregnancy. In the UK, low intensity cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the main psychological treatment offered for those with mild or moderate depression and is recommended during the perinatal period, however referral by midwives and take up of treatment by pregnant women is extremely low. Interpersonal Counselling (IPC) is a brief, low-intensity form of Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) that focuses on areas of concern to service users during pregnancy. To improve psychological treatment for depression during pregnancy, the study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a trial of IPC for antenatal depression in routine NHS services compared to low intensity perinatal specific CBT. METHODS: We conducted a small randomised controlled trial in two centres. A total of 52 pregnant women with mild or moderate depression were randomised to receive 6 sessions of IPC or perinatal specific CBT. Treatment was provided by 12 junior mental health workers (jMHW). The primary outcome was the number of women recruited to the point of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included maternal mood, couple functioning, attachment, functioning, treatment adherence, and participant and staff acceptability. RESULTS: The study was feasible and acceptable. Recruitment was successful through scanning clinics, only 6 of the 52 women were recruited through midwives. 71% of women in IPC completed treatment. Women reported IPC was acceptable, and supervisors reported high treatment competence in IPC arm by jMHWs. Outcome measures indicated there was improvement in mood in both groups (Change in EPDS score IPC 4.4 (s.d. 5.1) and CBT 4.0 (s.d. 4.8). CONCLUSIONS: This was a feasibility study and was not large enough to detect important differences between IPC and perinatal specific CBT. A full-scale trial of IPC for antenatal depression in routine IAPT services is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered with ISRCTN registry 11513120 . - date of registration 05/04/2018.

Breaking bread: examining the impact of policy changes in access to state-funded provisions of gluten-free foods in England.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease affects approximately 1% of the population and is increasingly diagnosed in the United Kingdom. A nationwide consultation in England has recommend that state-funded provisions for gluten-free (GF) food should be restricted to bread and mixes but not banned, yet financial strain has prompted regions of England to begin partially or fully ceasing access to these provisions. The impact of these policy changes on different stakeholders remains unclear. METHODS: Prescription data were collected for general practice services across England (n = 7176) to explore changes in National Health Service (NHS) expenditure on GF foods over time (2012-2017). The effects of sex, age, deprivation and rurality on GF product expenditure were estimated using a multi-level gamma regression model. Spending rate within NHS regions that had introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' was compared to spending in the same time periods amongst NHS regions which continued to fund prescriptions for GF products. RESULTS: Annual expenditure on GF products in 2012 (before bans were introduced in any area) was £25.1 million. Higher levels of GF product expenditure were found in general practices in areas with lower levels of deprivation, higher levels of rurality and higher proportions of patients aged under 18 and over 75. Expenditure on GF food within localities that introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' were reduced by approximately 80% within the 3 months following policy changes. If all regions had introduced a 'complete ban' policy in 2014, the NHS in England would have made an annual cost-saving of £21.1 million (equivalent to 0.24% of the total primary care medicines expenditure), assuming no negative sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of more restrictive GF prescribing policies has been associated with 'quick wins' for NHS regions under extreme financial pressure. However, these initial savings will be largely negated if GF product policies revert to recently published national recommendations. Better evidence of the long-term impact of restricting GF prescribing on patient health, expenses and use of NHS services is needed to inform policy.

REST: a preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement - feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement. DESIGN: Feasibility two-arm two-centre RCT using 1:1 randomisation with an embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Two National Health Service (NHS) secondary care hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Preoperative adult patients identified from total knee replacement waiting lists with disturbed sleep, defined as a score of 0-28 on the Sleep Condition Indicator questionnaire. INTERVENTION: The REST intervention is a preoperative tailored sleep assessment and behavioural intervention package delivered by an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP), with a follow-up phone call 4 weeks postintervention. All participants received usual care as provided by the participating NHS hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full trial. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1-week presurgery, and 3 months postsurgery. Data collected to determine feasibility included the number of eligible patients, recruitment rates and intervention adherence. Qualitative work explored the acceptability of the study processes and intervention delivery through interviews with ESPs and patients. RESULTS: Screening packs were posted to 378 patients and 57 patients were randomised. Of those randomised, 20 had surgery within the study timelines. An appointment was attended by 25/28 (89%) of participants randomised to the intervention. Follow-up outcomes measures were completed by 40/57 (70%) of participants presurgery and 15/57 (26%) postsurgery. Where outcome measures were completed, data completion rates were 80% or higher for outcomes at all time points, apart from the painDETECT: 86% complete at baseline, 72% at presurgery and 67% postsurgery. Interviews indicated that most participants found the study processes and intervention acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has demonstrated that with some amendments to processes and design, an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the REST intervention is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14233189.

Did the evidence-based intervention (EBI) programme reduce inappropriate procedures, lessen unwarranted variation or lead to spill-over effects in the National Health Service?

BACKGROUND: Health systems are under pressure to maintain services within limited resources. The Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) programme published a first list of guidelines in 2019, which aimed to reduce inappropriate use of interventions within the NHS in England, reducing potential harm and optimising the use of limited resources. Seventeen procedures were selected in the first round, published in April 2019. METHODS: We evaluated changes in the trends for each procedure after its inclusion in the EBI's first list of guidelines using interrupted time series analysis. We explored whether there was any evidence of spill-over effects onto related or substitute procedures, as well as exploring changes in geographical variation following the publication of national guidance. RESULTS: Most procedures were experiencing downward trends in the years prior to the launch of EBI. We found no evidence of a trend change in any of the 17 procedures following the introduction of the guidance. No evidence of spill-over increases in substitute or related procedures was found. Geographic variation in the number of procedures performed across English CCGs remained at similar levels before and after EBI. CONCLUSIONS: The EBI programme had little success in its aim to further reduce the use of the 17 procedures it deemed inappropriate in all or certain circumstances. Most procedure rates were already decreasing before EBI and all continued with a similar trend afterwards. Geographical variation in the number of procedures remained at a similar level post EBI. De-adoption of inappropriate care is essential in maintaining health systems across the world. However, further research is needed to explore context specific enablers and barriers to effective identification and de-adoption of such inappropriate health care to support future de-adoption endeavours.

Trauma-specific mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for women with post-traumatic stress disorder and a history of domestic abuse: intervention refinement and a randomised feasibility trial (coMforT study).

BACKGROUND: Women who have experienced domestic violence and abuse (DVA) are at increased risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD). In 2014-2015, we developed a prototype trauma-specific mindfulness-based cognitive therapy curriculum (TS-MBCT) for the treatment of PTSD in a DVA population. This study aimed to refine the prototype TS-MBCT and evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Intervention refinement phase was informed by evidence synthesis from a literature review, qualitative interviews with professionals and DVA survivors, and a consensus exercise with experts in trauma and mindfulness. We tested the refined TS-MBCT intervention in an individually randomised parallel group feasibility trial with pre-specified progression criteria, a traffic light system, and embedded process and health economics evaluations. RESULTS: The TS-MBCT intervention consisted of eight group sessions and home practice. We screened 109 women in a DVA agency and recruited 20 (15 TS-MBCT, 5 self-referral to National Health Service (NHS) psychological treatment), with 80% follow-up at 6 months. Our TS-MBCT intervention had 73% uptake, 100% retention, and high acceptability. Participants suggested recruitment via multiple agencies, and additional safety measures. Randomisation into the NHS control arm did not work due to long waiting lists and previous negative experiences. Three self-administered PTSD/CPTSD questionnaires produced differing outcomes thus a clinician administered measure might work better. We met six out of nine feasibility progression criteria at green and three at amber targets demonstrating that it is possible to conduct a full-size RCT of the TS-MBCT intervention after making minor amendments to recruitment and randomisation procedures, the control intervention, primary outcomes measures, and intervention content. At 6 months, none of the PTSD/CPTSD outcomes ruled out a clinically important difference between trial arms indicating that it is reasonable to proceed to a full-size RCT to estimate these outcomes with greater precision. CONCLUSIONS: A future RCT of the coMforT TS-MBCT intervention should have an internal pilot, recruit from multiple DVA agencies, NHS and non-NHS settings, have an active control psychological treatment, use robust randomisation and safety procedures, and clinician-administered measures for PTSD/CPTSD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN64458065 11/01/2019.

Limit of detection of troponin discharge strategy versus usual care: randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical effectiveness of a 'rule-out' acute coronary syndrome (ACS) strategy for emergency department patients with chest pain, incorporating a single undetectable high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) taken at presentation, together with a non-ischaemic ECG, remains unknown. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial, across eight hospitals in the UK, aimed to establish the clinical effectiveness of an undetectable hs-cTn and ECG (limit of detection and ECG discharge (LoDED)) discharge strategy. Eligible adult patients presented with chest pain; the treating clinician intended to perform investigations to rule out an ACS; the initial ECG was non-ischaemic; and peak symptoms occurred <6 hours previously. Participants were randomised 1:1 to either the LoDED strategy or the usual rule-out strategy. The primary outcome was discharge from the hospital within 4 hours of arrival, without a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) within 30 days. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and March 2019, 632 patients were randomised; 3 were later withdrawn. Of 629 patients (age 53.8 (SD 16.1) years, 41% women), 7% had a MACE within 30 days. For the LoDED strategy, 141 of 309 (46%) patients were discharged within 4 hours, without MACE within 30 days, and for usual care, 114 of 311 (37%); pooled adjusted OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.84 to 2.98). No patient with an initial undetectable hs-cTn had a MACE within 30 days. CONCLUSION: The LoDED strategy facilitates safe early discharge in >40% of patients with chest pain. Clinical effectiveness is variable when compared with existing rule-out strategies and influenced by wider system factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86184521.

TULIP: a randomised controlled trial of surgical versus non-surgical treatment of lateral compression injuries of the pelvis with complete sacral fractures (LC1) in the non-fragility fracture patient-a feasibility study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic fractures are the most common type of pelvic fracture. The majority of LC1 fractures are considered stable. Fractures where a complete sacral fracture is present increases the degree of potential instability and have the potential to displace over time. Non-operative management of these unstable fractures may involve restricted weight bearing and significant rehabilitation. Frequent monitoring with X-rays is also necessary for displacement of the fracture. Operative stabilisation of these fractures may be appropriate to prevent displacement of the fracture. This may allow patients to mobilise pain-free, quicker. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a feasibility study to inform the design of a full definitive randomised controlled trial to guide the most appropriate management of these injuries. Participants will be recruited from major trauma centres and randomly allocated to either operative or non-operative management of their injuries. A variety of outcome instruments, measuring health-related quality of life, functional outcome and pain, will be completed at several time points up to 12 months post injury. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken with participants to explore their views of the treatments under investigation and trial processes.Eligibility and recruitment to the study will be analysed to inform the feasibility of a definitive trial. Completion rates of the measurement instruments will be assessed, as well as their sensitivity to change and the presence of floor or ceiling effects in this population, to inform the choice of the primary outcome for a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was given by the South West-Central Bristol NHS Research Ethics Committee on 2nd July 2018 (Ref; 18/SW/0135). The study will be reported in relevant specialist journals and through presentation at specialist conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10649958.

Protocol for a feasibility randomised trial of low-intensity interventions for antenatal depression: ADAGIO trial comparing interpersonal counselling with cognitive behavioural therapy.

INTRODUCTION: One in eight women suffer from depression during pregnancy. Currently, low-intensity brief treatment based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the only talking treatment widely available in the National Health Service (NHS) for mild and moderate depression. CBT involves identifying and changing unhelpful negative thoughts and behaviours to improve mood. Mothers in our patient advisory groups requested greater treatment choice. Interpersonal counselling (IPC) is a low-intensity version of interpersonal therapy. It may have important advantages during pregnancy over CBT because it targets relationship problems, changes in role and previous losses (eg, miscarriage). We aim to compare CBT and IPC for pregnant women with depression in a feasibility study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm non-blinded randomised feasibility study of 60 women will be conducted in two UK localities. Women with depression will be identified through midwife clinics and ultrasound scanning appointments and randomised to receive six sessions of IPC or CBT. In every other way, these women will receive usual care. Women thought to have severe depression will be referred for more intensive treatment. After 12 weeks, we will measure women's mood, well-being, relationship satisfaction and use of healthcare. Women, their partners and staff providing treatments will be interviewed to understand whether IPC is an acceptable approach and whether changes should be introduced before applying to run a larger trial.Several groups of patients with depression during pregnancy have contributed to our study design. A patient advisory group will meet and advise us during the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study results will inform the design of a larger multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our findings will be shared through public engagement events, papers and reports to organisations within the NHS. National Research Ethics Service Committee approved the study protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11513120.