Patient journey and costs through a brain health clinic compared with a memory clinic: a costing study.

BACKGROUND: Dementia and Alzheimer's disease are the leading cause of death in England, with prevalence estimated to rise with an ageing population. 2021 cost estimates were £25 billion, rising to an estimated £47 billion in 2050. Brain health clinics (BHC) offer patients with memory concerns access to higher quality memory assessment and imaging than memory clinics, which are the usual care. BHCs aim to offer patients a more accurate and timely diagnosis, resulting in more specific treatment options. BHCs also offer patients the opportunity to take part in research. We aimed to compare the cost of a patient journey through a BHC and a memory clinic as part of an evaluation of the BHC model. METHODS: For this costing study, we consulted staff from one BHC and one memory clinic in the south of England in March 2023, to identify the patient journey and estimate clinical and research resources, time, and costs. We estimated personnel costs using time-per-task estimations multiplied by staff salary and verified with full-time-equivalent estimations for clinical and research tasks overall. BHC costs included both the BHC appointment and a follow-up appointment of reduced duration at the memory clinic. Memory clinic costs included a memory clinic appointment of normal duration. We estimated costs for both clinical (memory clinics and BHC) and research (BHC) tasks (not shown here). FINDINGS: BHC costs were 3·5 times more expensive (£1428) than memory clinic costs (£414). Approximately 150 patients are seen in BHCs yearly (total cost £214 200) compared with 600 patients seen in memory clinics yearly (total cost £248 400). BHC patients re-entering the memory clinic pathway required shorter appointments, thus offering cost savings of £230 per appointment in the memory clinic. INTERPRETATION: BHC costs were higher due to a lower throughput of patients and higher cost of high-quality imaging and assessment compared with memory clinics. However, these costs might prove to provide value for money when considering the gains in quality of life for patients and carers. Future work is planned to gather further outcome data to understand the added value of BHCs. Limitations include only assessing costs for one BHC and one memory clinic; further cost estimates are preferrable. FUNDING: None.

Protocol for the TRANSLATE prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial of prostate biopsy technique.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: to determine whether local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (LATP) biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≥2 disease (i.e., any Gleason pattern 4 disease), compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, in biopsy-naïve men undergoing biopsy based on suspicion of csPCa. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: to compare (i) infection rates, (ii) health-related quality of life, (iii) patient-reported procedure tolerability, (iv) patient-reported biopsy-related complications (including bleeding, bruising, pain, loss of erectile function), (v) number of subsequent prostate biopsy procedures required, (vi) cost-effectiveness, (vii) other histological parameters, and (viii) burden and rate of detection of clinically insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1 disease) in men undergoing these two types of prostate biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The TRANSLATE trial is a UK-wide, multicentre, randomised clinical trial that meets the criteria for level-one evidence in diagnostic test evaluation. TRANSLATE is investigating whether LATP biopsy leads to a higher rate of detection of csPCa compared to TRUS prostate biopsy. Both biopsies are being performed with an average of 12 systematic cores in six sectors (depending on prostate size), plus three to five target cores per multiparametric/bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging lesion. LATP biopsy is performed using an ultrasound probe-mounted needle-guidance device (either the 'Precision-Point' or BK UA1232 system). TRUS biopsy is performed according to each hospital's standard practice. The study is 90% powered to detect a 10% difference (LATP biopsy hypothesised at 55% detection rate for csPCa vs 45% for TRUS biopsy). A total of 1042 biopsy-naïve men referred with suspected PCa need to be recruited. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust prospective data to determine the diagnostic ability of LATP biopsy vs TRUS biopsy in the primary diagnostic setting.

Cost-effectiveness of ambulatory care management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax has been shown to reduce initial hospitalisation, but at the expense of increase adverse events. As a result, questions remain about the cost-effectiveness of this option. OBJECTIVES: A within-trial economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ambulatory care when compared with standard guideline-based management. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion or both). Follow-up was 12 months. Outcomes included healthcare resource use and costs, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: 236 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). After multiple imputation for missing data, patients in the ambulatory care group had significantly lower National Health Service healthcare costs (-£788, 95% CI difference: -1527 to -50; p=0.037) than those in the standard care group. There were no differences in the number of QALYs gained (mean difference: -0.001, 95% CI difference: -0.032 to 0.030; p=0.95). When standard care was compared with ambulatory care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £799 066 per QALY gained, well above current thresholds of cost-effectiveness. As a result, the probability of ambulatory care being cost-effective was 0.93. CONCLUSION: Outpatient ambulatory management is highly likely to be a cost-effective option in the management of primary pneumothorax. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79151659.

Obtaining EQ-5D-5L utilities from the disease specific quality of life Alzheimer's disease scale: development and results from a mapping study.

PURPOSE: The Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease Scale (QoL-AD) is commonly used to assess disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as rated by patients and their carers. For cost-effectiveness analyses, utilities based on the EQ-5D are often required. We report a new mapping algorithm to obtain EQ-5D indices when only QoL-AD data are available. METHODS: Different statistical models to estimate utility directly, or responses to individual EQ-5D questions (response mapping) from QoL-AD, were trialled for patient-rated and proxy-rated questionnaires. Model performance was assessed by root mean square error and mean absolute error. RESULTS: The response model using multinomial regression including age and sex, performed best in both the estimation dataset and an independent dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended mapping algorithm allows researchers for the first time to estimate EQ-5D values from QoL-AD data, enabling cost-utility analyses using datasets where the QoL-AD but no utility measures were collected.

Health economic modeling for Alzheimer's disease: Expert perspectives.

The successful development of an economic model for the evaluation of future Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions is critical to accurately inform policy makers and payers. As our understanding of AD expands, this becomes an increasingly complex and challenging goal. Advances in diagnostic techniques for AD and the prospect of disease-modifying treatments raise an urgent need to define specifications for future economic models and to ensure that the necessary data to populate them are available. This Perspective article provides expert opinions from health economists and governmental agency representatives on how future economic models for AD might be structured, validated, and reported. We aim to stimulate much-needed discussion about the detailed specification of future health economic models for AD.

Societal costs and burden of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis polyneuropathy.

Background: Hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis polyneuropathy (ATTRv-PN) is a rare life-threatening disease that imposes considerable mortality and morbidity associated with increased costs, high social support and productivity losses. This study aims to estimate the societal costs and burden of ATTRv-PN.Methods: A cost-of-illness (COI) and burden of disease model were specified from a societal perspective, using a prevalence-based approach. Direct and indirect costs were included. Healthcare resource use was retrieved from public databases, previous Portuguese studies and the literature. The burden of disease was expressed in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), as defined by the World Health Organisation.Results: In 2016, the total annual COI of ATTRv-PN in Portugal was 52,502,796€ and the mean cost per patient was 28,152€ (79% direct; 21% indirect costs). Treatments accounted for 52% of total costs, while 0.18% were devoted to disease prevention. A total of 2056 DALYs were lost, 26% due to disability and 74% due to death.Conclusions: Annual costs and burden of ATTRv-PN were considerable but within the range of other rare diseases. Policies and public interventions to prevent and reduce the burden of disease should be prioritised, since patients experience excess morbidity, mortality and total costs will likely increase in the future.

Health-related quality of life in people with predementia Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment or dementia measured with preference-based instruments: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining reliable estimates of the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of people with predementia Alzheimer's disease [AD] (preclinical or prodromal AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia is essential for economic evaluations of related health interventions. AIMS: To provide an overview of which quality of life instruments are being used to assess HR-QoL in people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia; and, to summarise their reported HR-QoL levels at each stage of the disease and by type of respondent. METHODS: We systematically searched for and reviewed eligible studies published between January 1990 and the end of April 2017 which reported HR-QoL for people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia. We only included instruments which are preference-based, allowing index scores/utility values to be attached to each health state they describe based on preferences obtained from population surveys. Summary results were presented by respondent type (self or proxy), type of instrument, geographical location and, where possible, stage of disease. Health state utility values derived using the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) were meta-analysed by pooling reported results across all studies by disease severity (MCI, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, severe dementia, not specified) and by respondent (person with dementia, carer, general public, not specified), using a fixed-effects approach. RESULTS: We identified 61 studies which reported HR-QoL for people with MCI or dementia using preference-based instruments, of which 48 used the EQ-5D. Thirty-six studies reported HR-QoL for mild and/or moderate disease severities, and 12 studies reported utility values for MCI. We found systematic differences between self-rated and proxy-rated HR-QoL, with proxy-rated utility valued being significantly lower in more severe disease states. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial literature now exists quantifying the impact of dementia on HR-QoL using preference-based measures, giving researchers and modellers a firmer basis on which to select appropriate utility values when estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area. Further research is required on HR-QoL of people with preclinical and prodromal AD and MCI, possible differences by type of dementia, the effects of comorbidities, study setting and the informal caregiver's own HR-QoL, including any effect of that on their proxy-ratings.

Delayed Hospital Discharges of Older Patients: A Systematic Review on Prevalence and Costs.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To determine the prevalence of delayed discharges of elderly inpatients and associated costs. DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, CAB Abstracts, Econlit, Web of Knowledge, EBSCO - CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Health Management Information Consortium, and SCIE - Social Care Online for evidence published between 1990 and 2015 on number of days or proportion of delayed discharges for elderly inpatients in acute hospitals. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted. Data on proportions of delayed discharges were pooled using a random effects logistic model and the association of relevant factors was assessed. Mean costs of delayed discharge were calculated in USD adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). RESULTS: Of 64 studies included, 52 (81.3%) reported delayed discharges as proportions of total hospital stay and 9 (14.1%) estimated the respective costs for these delays. Proportions of delayed discharges varied widely, from 1.6% to 91.3% with a weighted mean of 22.8%. This variation was also seen in studies from the same country, for example, in the United Kingdom, they ranged between 1.6% and 60.0%. No factor was found to be significantly associated with delays. The mean costs of delayed discharge also varied widely (between 142 and 31,935 USD PPP adjusted), reflecting the variability in mean days of delay per patient. IMPLICATIONS: Delayed discharges occur in most countries and the associated costs are significant. However, the variability in prevalence of delayed discharges and available data on costs limit our knowledge of the full impact of delayed discharges. A standardization of methods is necessary to allow comparisons to be made, and additional studies are required-preferably by disease area-to determine the postdischarge needs of specific patient groups and the estimated costs of delays.

Resource utilisation and costs in predementia and dementia: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is the fastest growing major cause of disability globally with a mounting social and financial impact for patients and their families but also to health and social care systems. This review aims to systematically synthesise evidence on the utilisation of resources and costs incurred by patients and their caregivers and by health and social care services across the full spectrum of dementia, from its preceding preclinical stage to end of life. The main drivers of resources used and costs will also be identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, EconLit, CEA Registry, TRIP, NHS EED, SCI, RePEc and OpenGrey between January 2000 and beginning of May 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. The reporting of costing methodology will be assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented for resources used and costs incurred, by level of disease severity when available. If feasible, the data will be synthesised using appropriate statistical techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Included articles will be reviewed for an ethics statement. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to the work developed in the Real World Outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum for better care: multi-modal data access platform (ROADMAP). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017071413.

Systematic literature review of methodologies and data sources of existing economic models across the full spectrum of Alzheimer's disease and dementia from apparently healthy through disease progression to end of life care: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges the world will face in the coming decades, as it is one of the principal causes of disability and dependency among older people. Economic modelling is used widely across many health conditions to inform decisions on health and social care policy and practice. The aim of this literature review is to systematically identify, review and critically evaluate existing health economics models in dementia. We included the full spectrum of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), from preclinical stages through to severe dementia and end of life. This review forms part of the Real world Outcomes across the Alzheimer's Disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data Access Platform (ROADMAP) project. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Electronic searches were conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Economic Literature Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Science Citation Index, Turning Research Into Practice and Open Grey for studies published between January 2000 and the end of June 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study against predefined eligibility criteria. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreement. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed using the Phillips checklist for decision analytic modelling. A narrative synthesis will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be made available in a scientific peer-reviewed journal paper, will be presented at relevant conferences and will also be made available through the ROADMAP project. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017073874.

Measuring quality of life of people with predementia and dementia and their caregivers: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is the fastest growing major cause of disability globally and may have a profound impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of both the patient with dementia and those who care for them. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesise the measurements of HRQoL for people with, and their caregivers across the full spectrum of, dementia from its preceding stage of predementia to end of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review was conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online , ExcerptaMedicadataBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsycINFO between January 1990 and the end of April 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. HRQoL measurements will be presented separately for people with dementia and caregivers by instrument used and, when possible, HRQoL will be reported by disease type and stage of the disease. Descriptive statistics of the results will be provided. A narrative synthesis of studies will also be provided discussing differences in HRQoL measurements by instrument used to estimate it, type of dementia and disease severity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic literature review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to the work developed in the Real World Outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data access platform (ROADMAP). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017071416.

Reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Social isolation and loneliness affect approximately one-third to one-half of the elderly population and have a negative impact on their physical and mental health. Group-based interventions where facilitators are well trained and where the elderly are actively engaged in their development seem to be more effective, but conclusions have been limited by weak study designs. We aim to conduct a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of health promotion interventions on social isolation or loneliness in older people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review was conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, LILACS, OpenGrey and the Cochrane Library on peer-reviewed studies and doctoral theses published between 1995 and 2016 evaluating the impact of health promotion interventions on social isolation and/or loneliness for individuals aged 60 and over. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented by type of outcome (social isolation or loneliness) and type of intervention. If feasible, the effectiveness data will be synthesised using appropriate statistical techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to a DPhil thesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016039650.