Optimising ambulance conveyance rates and staff costs by adjusting proportions of rapid-response vehicles and dual-crewed ambulances: an economic decision analytical modelling study.

AIM: To model optimum proportions of dual-crewed ambulances (DCAs) and rapid-response vehicles (RRVs) in Ambulance Trusts with a view to generating a policy brief for one Ambulance Trust and a modelling tool for other Trusts on the strategic procurement and allocation of emergency vehicle (EV) resources. METHODS: Historical EV assignments for 12 months of emergency calls in 2019 were provided by an NHS Ambulance Trust and analysed for backup, see and treat, and patient to hospital conveyance. Unit costs were derived for paramedics and technicians using Agenda for Change pay rates. Time cycles were assigned for RRV and DCA attendances and unit costs assigned to these. Information was put into a decision analytical model to estimate the costs and numbers of vehicles attending incidents based on relative proportions of available RRVs and DCAs. RESULTS: Of 711 992 calls attended by 837 107 EVs, 514 766 (72.3%) required at least one emergency department conveyance. The rate of conveyance was significantly lower when RRVs arrived first on the scene. 27 883 out of 529 693 (5.3%) DCAs first arriving at an incident required some backup, and this was also factored into the model. Modelling demonstrated high conveyance rates were counterproductive when increasing the relative proportions of RRVs to DCAs. For example, with conveyance rates of 65%, increasing the RRVs increased the cost and numbers of vehicles attending per incident. At lower conveyance rates, however, there was a levelling around 30% where it could become cost-effective to increase the relative proportions of RRVs to DCAs. CONCLUSION: At current overall conveyance rates, there is no benefit in increasing the relative proportions of RRVs to DCAs unless additional benefits can be realised that bring the conveyance rates down.

The effects of a leaflet-based intervention, 'Hypos can strike twice', on recurrent hypoglycaemic attendances by ambulance services: A non-randomised stepped wedge study.

AIMS: We aimed to investigate the effect of an intervention in which ambulance personnel provided advice supported by a booklet-'Hypos can strike twice'-issued following a hypoglycaemic event to prevent future ambulance attendances. METHODS: We used a non-randomised stepped wedge-controlled design. The intervention was introduced at different times (steps) in different areas (clusters) of operation within East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS). During the first step (T0), no clusters were exposed to the intervention, and during the last step (T3), all clusters were exposed. Data were analysed using a general linear mixed model (GLMM) and an interrupted-time series analysis (ITSA). RESULTS: The study included 4825 patients (mean age 65.42 years, SD 19.42; 2,166 females) experiencing hypoglycaemic events attended by EMAS. GLMM indicated a reduction in the number of unsuccessful attendances (i.e., attendance followed by a repeat attendance) in the final step of the intervention when compared to the first (odds ratio OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.76, p = 0.001). ITSA indicated a significant decrease in repeat ambulance attendances for hypoglycaemia-relative to the pre-intervention trend (p = 0.008). Furthermore, the hypoglycaemia care bundle was delivered in 66% of attendances during the intervention period, demonstrating a significant level of practice change (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The 'Hypos can strike twice' intervention had a positive effect on reducing numbers of repeat attendances for hypoglycaemia and in achieving the care bundle. The study supports the use of information booklets by ambulance clinicians to prevent future attendances for recurrent hypoglycaemic events.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

BACKGROUND: Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden. OBJECTIVES: To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective. METHODS: Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set. RESULTS: Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.

Taxonomy for methods of resource use measurement.

Resource use measures, including forms, diaries and questionnaires, are ubiquitous in trial-based economic evaluations in the UK. However, there are concerns about the accuracy of how they are described, which limits the transparency of reporting. We developed a simple and structured taxonomy for methods of resource use measurement by examining 94 resource use measures (RUMs) employed within clinical trials, conducting a descriptive synthesis of the extracted data and soliciting wider opinion during a period of consultation. The reporting of RUMs was found to be varied and inconsistent. Our new taxonomy, which considered the views of 20 consultees, requires that RUMs are reported with a description of the following: (i) the source of data (patient; patient proxy, e.g. carer, parent or guardian; observation of contemporary events; medical records; or other databases); (ii) who completes the RUM (patient or their proxy, and researcher or health care professional); (iii) how it is administered (to self [the patient], face to face or telephone); (iv) how it is recorded (form, questionnaire, log or diary); and (v) medium of recording (e.g. paper or electronically). Based on the present analysis, we have developed a taxonomy for RUMs that should result in data collection methods being described more accurately.

Model-based economic evaluation of the effectiveness of "'Hypos' can strike twice", a leaflet-based ambulance clinician referral intervention to prevent recurrent hypoglycaemia.

"'Hypos' can strike twice" (HS2) is a pragmatic, leaflet-based referral intervention designed for administration by clinicians of the emergency medical services (EMS) to people they have attended and successfully treated for hypoglycaemia. Its main purpose is to encourage the recipient to engage with their general practitioner or diabetic nurse in order that improvements in medical management of their diabetes may be made, thereby reducing their risk of recurrent hypoglycaemia. Herein we build a de novo economic model for purposes of incremental analyses to compare, in 2018-19 prices, HS2 against standard care for recurrent hypoglycaemia in the fortnight following the initial attack from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). We found that per patient NHS costs incurred by people receiving the HS2 intervention over the fortnight following an initial hypoglycaemia average £49.79, and under standard care costs average £40.50. Target patient benefit assessed over that same period finds the probability of no recurrence of hypoglycaemia averaging 42.4% under HS2 and 39.4% under standard care, a 7.6% reduction in relative risk. We find that implementing HS2 will cost the NHS an additional £309.36 per episode of recurrent hypoglycaemia avoided. Contrary to the favourable support offered in Botan et al., we conclude that in its current form the HS2 intervention is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources when compared to standard NHS care in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia recurring within a fortnight of an initial attack that was resolved at-scene by EMS ambulance clinicians.

Development of a database of instruments for resource-use measurement: purpose, feasibility, and design.

BACKGROUND: Health economists frequently rely on methods based on patient recall to estimate resource utilization. Access to questionnaires and diaries, however, is often limited. This study examined the feasibility of establishing an open-access Database of Instruments for Resource-Use Measurement, identified relevant fields for data extraction, and outlined its design. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to authors of full UK economic evaluations listed in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (2008-2010), authors of monographs of Health Technology Assessments (1998-2010), and subscribers to the JISCMail health economics e-mailing list. The survey included questions on piloting, validation, recall period, and data capture method. Responses were analyzed and data extracted to generate relevant fields for the database. RESULTS: A total of 143 responses to the survey provided data on 54 resource-use instruments for inclusion in the database. All were reliant on patient or carer recall, and a majority (47) were questionnaires. Thirty-seven were designed for self-completion by the patient, carer, or guardian, and the remainder were designed for completion by researchers or health care professionals while interviewing patients. Methods of development were diverse, particularly in areas such as the planning of resource itemization (evident in 25 instruments), piloting (25), and validation (29). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the present analysis, we developed a Web-enabled Database of Instruments for Resource-Use Measurement, accessible via www.DIRUM.org. This database may serve as a practical resource for health economists, as well as a means to facilitate further research in the area of resource-use data collection.

Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: a systematic review of studies funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment program.

BACKGROUND: The UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program funds trials that address issues of clinical and cost-effectiveness to meet the needs of the National Health Service (NHS). The objective of this review was to systematically assess the methods of resource use data collection and costing; and to produce a best practice guide for data capture within economic analyses alongside clinical trials. METHODS: All 100 HTA-funded primary research papers published to June 2009 were reviewed for the health economic methods employed. Data were extracted and summarized by: health technology assessed, costing perspective adopted, evidence of planning and piloting, data collection method, frequency of data collection, and sources of unit cost data. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies were identified as having conducted an economic analysis, of which 85 recorded patient-level resource use. The review identified important differences in how data are collected. These included: a priori evidence of analysts having identified important cost drivers; the piloting and validation of patient-completed resource use questionnaires; choice of costing perspective; and frequency of data collection. Areas of commonality included: the extensive use of routine medical records and reliance on patient recall; and the use of standard sources of unit costs. CONCLUSION: Economic data collection is variable, even among a homogeneous selection of trials designed to meet the needs of a common organization (NHS). Areas for improvement have been identified, and based on our findings and related reviews and guidelines, a checklist is proposed for good practice relating to economic data collection within clinical trials.

Factors Influencing the Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes of HPV Vaccination and Screening Interventions in Low-to-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer ranks fourth amongst the commonest malignancies worldwide and the second most prevalent cancer afflicting women in low-to-middle income countries (LMICs), hence, of great public health importance. LMICs are the most affected regions as evidenced by their high prevalence of the disease. Mortality associated with cervical neoplasms is preventable through the implementation of recommended preventive approaches. AIMS: This review aimed to appraise evidence on the cost effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention interventions in LMICs involving cervical screening and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programmes. METHODS: A search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science was elicited and studies published between 1st January 2008 and 31st December 2018 were retrieved. Two authors independently undertook the screening, review, selection of studies, and data extraction with disagreements being resolved through discussion and consensus. RESULTS: Twelve studies were selected. The cost-effectiveness outcomes of HPV vaccination and screening interventions are dependent on age, screening method used, intervention coverage, and the number of doses or visits required for vaccination and screening, respectively. A combination of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) screening and HPV vaccination appears to be the most cost-effective approach in reducing the lifetime risk for HPV-linked cervical neoplasms. Similarly, vaccination as a stand-alone intervention is potentially cost effective provided the coverage is maintained between 70 and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: HPV vaccination and screening interventions may be cost effective in LMICs and potentially reduce the lifetime risk, economic burden, and associated mortality. However, it is important to consider the factors that influence the cost effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention interventions for better outcomes to be realised.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection regimens in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost utility of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injection (MDI) regimens during the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and young people. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. SETTING: 15 paediatric National Health Service (NHS) diabetes services in England and Wales. The study opened to recruitment in May 2011 and closed in January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged between 7 months and 15 years, with a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes were eligible to participate. Patients who had a sibling with the disease, and those who took drug treatments or had additional diagnoses that could have affected glycaemic control were ineligible. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised, stratified by age and treating centre, to start treatment with CSII or MDI within 14 days of diagnosis. Starting doses of aspart (CSII and MDI) and glargine or detemir (MDI) were calculated according to weight and age, and titrated according to blood glucose measurements and according to local clinical practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was glycaemic control (as measured by glycated haemoglobin; HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were percentage of patients in each treatment arm with HbA1c within the national target range, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, change in height and body mass index (as measured by standard deviation scores), insulin requirements (units/kg/day), partial remission rate (insulin dose adjusted HbA1c <9), paediatric quality of life inventory score, and cost utility based on the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained from an NHS costing perspective. RESULTS: 294 participants were randomised and 293 included in intention to treat analyses (CSI, n=144; MDI, n=149). At 12 months, mean HbA1c was comparable with clinically unimportant differences between CSII and MDI participants (60.9 mmol/mol v 58.5 mmol/mol, mean difference 2.4 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 5.3), P=0.09). Achievement of HbA1c lower than 58 mmol/mol was low among the two groups (66/143 (46%) CSII participants v 78/142 (55%) MDI participants; relative risk 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.06)). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were low in both groups. Fifty four non-serious and 14 serious adverse events were reported during CSII treatment, and 17 non-serious and eight serious adverse events during MDI treatment. Parents (but not children) reported superior PedsQL scores for those patients treated with CSII compared to those treated with MDI. CSII was more expensive than MDI by £1863 (€2179; $2474; 95% confidence interval £1620 to £2137) per patient, with no additional QALY gains (difference -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.018)). CONCLUSION: During the first year following type 1 diabetes diagnosis, no clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified in children and young people in the UK setting, and treatment with either regimen was suboptimal in achieving HbA1c thresholds. CSII was not cost effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275; European Clinical Trials Database 2010-023792-25.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: the SCIPI RCT.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing long-term complications of type 1 diabetes (T1D) is related to glycaemic control and is reduced by the use of intensive insulin treatment regimens: multiple daily injections (MDI) (≥ 4) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Despite a lack of evidence that the more expensive treatment with CSII is superior to MDI, both treatments are used widely within the NHS. OBJECTIVES: (1) To compare glycaemic control during treatment with CSII and MDI and (2) to determine safety and cost-effectiveness of the treatment, and quality of life (QoL) of the patients. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open-label randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot and 12-month follow-up with 1 : 1 web-based block randomisation stratified by age and centre. SETTING: Fifteen diabetes clinics in hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 7 months to 15 years. INTERVENTIONS: Continuous subsutaneous insulin infusion or MDI initiated within 14 days of diagnosis of T1D. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using paper forms and were entered centrally. Data from glucometers and CSII were downloaded. The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 was completed at each visit and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL, diabetes module) was completed at 6 and 12 months. Costs were estimated from hospital patient administration system data. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 12 months. The secondary outcomes were (1) HbA1c concentrations of < 48 mmol/mol, (2) severe hypoglycaemia, (3) diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), (4) T1D- or treatment-related adverse events (AEs), (5) change in body mass index and height standard deviation score, (6) insulin requirements, (7) QoL and (8) partial remission rate. The economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: A total of 293 participants, with a median age of 9.8 years (minimum 0.7 years, maximum 16 years), were randomised (CSII, n = 149; MDI, n = 144) between May 2011 and January 2015. Primary outcome data were available for 97% of participants (CSII, n = 143; MDI, n = 142). At 12 months, age-adjusted least mean squares HbA1c concentrations were comparable between groups: CSII, 60.9 mmol/mol [95% confidence interval (CI) 58.5 to 63.3 mmol/mol]; MDI, 58.5 mmol/mol (95% CI 56.1 to 60.9 mmol/mol); and the difference of CSII - MDI, 2.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -0.4 to 5.3 mmol/mol). For HbA1c concentrations of < 48 mmol/mol (CSII, 22/143 participants; MDI, 29/142 participants), the relative risk was 0.75 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.25), and for partial remission rates (CSII, 21/86 participants; MDI, 21/64), the relative risk was 0.74 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.24). The incidences of severe hypoglycaemia (CSII, 6/144; MDI, 2/149 participants) and DKA (CSII, 2/144 participants; MDI, 0/149 participants) were low. In total, 68 AEs (14 serious) were reported during CSII treatment and 25 AEs (eight serious) were reported during MDI treatment. Growth outcomes did not differ. The reported insulin use was higher with CSII (mean difference 0.1 unit/kg/day, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.2 unit/kg/day; p = 0.01). QoL was slightly higher for those randomised to CSII. From a NHS perspective, CSII was more expensive than MDI mean total cost (£1863, 95% CI £1620 to £2137) with no additional QALY gains (-0.006 QALYs, 95% CI -0.031 to 0.018 QALYs). LIMITATIONS: Generalisability beyond 12 months is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: No clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified. CSII is not a cost-effective treatment in patients representative of the study population. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up is required to determine if clinical outcomes diverge after 1 year. A qualitative exploration of patient and professional experiences of MDI and CSII should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275 and EudraCT 2010-023792-25. 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. 22, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The cost of insulin pumps and consumables supplied by F. Hoffman-La Roche AG (Basel, Switzerland) for the purpose of the study were subject to a 25% discount on standard NHS costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Central Venous Catheters in the UK: A Secondary Publication from the CATCH Clinical Trial.

Background: Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce the risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients treated in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). However, it is unclear if they are cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Methods: Economic evaluation alongside the CATCH trial (ISRCTN34884569) to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline), heparin-bonded and standard polyurethane CVCs. The 6-month costs of CVCs and hospital admissions and visits were determined from administrative hospital data and case report forms. Results: BSIs were detected in 3.59% (18/502) of patients randomized to standard, 1.44% (7/486) to antibiotic and 3.42% (17/497) to heparin CVCs. Lengths of hospital stay did not differ between intervention groups. Total mean costs (95% confidence interval) were: £45,663 (£41,647-£50,009) for antibiotic, £42,065 (£38,322-£46,110) for heparin, and £44,503 (£40,619-£48,666) for standard CVCs. As heparin CVCs were not clinically effective at reducing BSI rate compared to standard CVCs, they were considered not to be cost-effective. The ICER for antibiotic vs. standard CVCs, of £54,057 per BSI avoided, was sensitive to the analytical time horizon. Conclusions: Substituting standard CVCs for antibiotic CVCs in PICUs will result in reduced occurrence of BSI but there is uncertainty as to whether this would be a cost-effective strategy for the NHS.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous injections allow for self-administration, but consideration of patients' perspectives on treatment choice is important to ensure adherence. Previous systematic reviews have been limited in their scope for assessing preferences in relation to other routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine patients' perspectives on subcutaneously administered self-injectable medications when compared with other routes or methods of administration for the same medicines. METHODS: Nine electronic databases were searched for publications since 2000 using terms pertaining to methods of administration, choice behavior, and adverse effects. Eligibility for inclusion was determined through reference to specific criteria by two independent reviewers. Results were described narratively. RESULTS: Of the 1726 papers screened, 85 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were focused mainly on methods of insulin administration for diabetes but also included treatments for pediatric growth disorders, multiple sclerosis, HIV, and migraine. Pen devices and autoinjectors were favored over administration with needle and syringe, particularly with respect to ergonomics, convenience, and portability. Inhalation appeared to be more acceptable than subcutaneous injection (in the case of insulin), but how subcutaneous infusion, intramuscular injection, and needle-free injection devices compare with subcutaneous injections in terms of patient preference is less certain. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified a number of studies showing the importance of the methods and routes of drug delivery on patient choice. However, studies were prone to bias, and further robust evidence based on methodologically sound approaches is required to demonstrate how patient choice might translate to improved adherence.

Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches.

Trial-based economic evaluations are an important aspect of health technology assessment. The availability of patient-level data coupled with unbiased estimates of clinical outcomes means that randomised controlled trials are effective vehicles for the generation of economic data. However there are methodological challenges to trial-based evaluations, including the collection of reliable data on resource use and cost, choice of health outcome measure, calculating minimally important differences, dealing with missing data, extrapolating outcomes and costs over time and the analysis of multinational trials. This review focuses on the state of the art of selective elements regarding the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations. The limitations of existing approaches are detailed and novel methods introduced. The review is internationally relevant but with a focus towards practice in the UK.

CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing impregnated and standard central venous catheters in children.

BACKGROUND: Impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infection (BSI) but not for children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of impregnated compared with standard CVCs for reducing BSI in children admitted for intensive care. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis from a NHS perspective and a generalisability analysis and cost impact analysis. SETTING: 14 English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged < 16 years admitted to a PICU and expected to require a CVC for ≥ 3 days. INTERVENTIONS: Heparin-bonded, antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline) or standard polyurethane CVCs, allocated randomly (1 : 1 : 1). The intervention was blinded to all but inserting clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to first BSI sampled between 48 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after CVC removal. The following data were used in the trial: trial case report forms; hospital administrative data for 6 months pre and post randomisation; and national-linked PICU audit and laboratory data. RESULTS: In total, 1859 children were randomised, of whom 501 were randomised prospectively and 1358 were randomised as an emergency; of these, 984 subsequently provided deferred consent for follow-up. Clinical effectiveness - BSIs occurred in 3.59% (18/502) of children randomised to standard CVCs, 1.44% (7/486) of children randomised to antibiotic CVCs and 3.42% (17/497) of children randomised to heparin CVCs. Primary analyses comparing impregnated (antibiotic and heparin CVCs) with standard CVCs showed no effect of impregnated CVCs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.34]. Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic CVCs were superior to standard CVCs (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96) but heparin CVCs were not (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.03). Time to thrombosis, mortality by 30 days and minocycline/rifampicin resistance did not differ by CVC. Cost-effectiveness - heparin CVCs were not clinically effective and therefore were not cost-effective. The incremental cost of antibiotic CVCs compared with standard CVCs over a 6-month time horizon was £1160 (95% CI -£4743 to £6962), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £54,057 per BSI avoided. There was considerable uncertainty in costs: antibiotic CVCs had a probability of 0.35 of being dominant. Based on index hospital stay costs only, antibiotic CVCs were associated with a saving of £97,543 per BSI averted. The estimated value of health-care resources associated with each BSI was £10,975 (95% CI -£2801 to £24,751). Generalisability and cost-impact - the baseline risk of BSI in 2012 for PICUs in England was 4.58 (95% CI 4.42 to 4.74) per 1000 bed-days. An estimated 232 BSIs could have been averted in 2012 using antibiotic CVCs. The additional cost of purchasing antibiotic CVCs for all children who require them (£36 per CVC) would be less than the value of resources associated with managing BSIs in PICUs with standard BSI rates of > 1.2 per 1000 CVC-days. CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome did not differ between impregnated and standard CVCs. However, antibiotic-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced the risk of BSI compared with standard and heparin CVCs. Adoption of antibiotic-impregnated CVCs could be beneficial even for PICUs with low BSI rates, although uncertainty remains whether or not they represent value for money to the NHS. Limitations - inserting clinicians were not blinded to allocation and a lower than expected event rate meant that there was limited power for head-to-head comparisons of each type of impregnation. Future work - adoption of impregnated CVCs in PICUs should be considered and could be monitored through linkage of electronic health-care data and clinical data on CVC use with laboratory surveillance data on BSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029717. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of insulin delivery by continuous subcutaneous infusion compared to multiple daily injections.

BACKGROUND: Intensive insulin therapy with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices or multiple daily injections (MDI) reduces the risk of long-term vascular complications of type I diabetes (TID). Both treatments are used routinely, but there is little evidence to demonstrate superiority of either treatment. If CSII treatment reduces the risk of long-term complications or is associated with an improved quality of life (QoL), the additional cost of this therapy may be compensated for by a reduction in long-term health expenditure. If there is no demonstrable difference between treatments, health-care resources may be better invested elsewhere. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Fifteen centres, selected to represent a population with a broad demographic, will recruit 316 patients, newly diagnosed with TID, aged between 7 months and 15 years. Exclusion criteria include additional pathologies or treatments likely to affect glycaemic control and a first-degree relative with TID. Randomisation to CSII or MDI is stratified for age, gender and recruiting centre. The randomised treatment starts within 15 days of diagnosis. Patients will be trained to adjust their insulin dose according to carbohydrate intake and blood glucose level. Study visits coincide with routine clinic appointments at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months when data relating to routine clinical assessments, adverse events and concomitant medications are collected. Health utilities questionnaires are completed at each visit and a diabetes-specific QoL questionnaire (PedsQL) at diagnosis, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is glycaemic control (HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include QoL, insulin use, growth and weight gain, adverse events and a health economics appraisal. DISCUSSION: This is the first adequately powered RCT comparing CSII and MDI in a non-selected population, treated according to standard practice guidelines. It will produce data that are meaningful to individual patients and local and national policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with the European Clinical Trials Database on 4 November 2010, reference 2010-023792-25.

Resource-use measurement based on patient recall: issues and challenges for economic evaluation.

Accurate resource-use measurement is challenging within an economic evaluation, but is a fundamental requirement for estimating efficiency. Considerable research effort has been concentrated on the appropriate measurement of outcomes and the policy implications of economic evaluation, while methods for resource-use measurement have been relatively neglected. Recently, the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement (DIRUM) was set up at http://www.dirum.org to provide a repository where researchers can share resource-use measures and methods. A workshop to discuss the issues was held at the University of Birmingham in October 2011. Based on material presented at the workshop, this article highlights the state of the art of UK instruments for resource-use data collection based on patient recall. We consider methodological issues in the design and analysis of resource-use instruments, and the challenges associated with designing new questionnaires. We suggest a method of developing a good practice guideline, and identify some areas for future research. Consensus amongst health economists has yet to be reached on many aspects of resource-use measurement. We argue that researchers should now afford costing methodologies the same attention as outcome measurement, and we hope that this Current Opinion article will stimulate a debate on methods of resource-use data collection and establish a research agenda to improve the precision and accuracy of resource-use estimates.