Cost-effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract to decrease infectious complications in colorectal cancer surgery: An analysis of the SELECT trial.

INTRODUCTION: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is effective in reducing infectious complications in elective colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. However, it is unclear whether SDD is cost-effective compared to standard antibiotic prophylaxis. MATERIAL & METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside multicenter randomized controlled trial, the SELECT-trial, from a healthcare perspective. Patients included underwent elective surgery for non-metastatic CRC. The intervention group received oral non-absorbable colistin, tobramycin and amphotericin B (SDD) next to standard antibiotic prophylaxis. Both groups received a single shot intravenous cefazolin and metronidazole preoperatively as standard prophylaxis. Occurrence of postoperative infectious complication in the first 30 postoperative days was extracted from medical records, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) based on the ED-5D-3L, and healthcare costs collected from the hospital's financial administration. RESULTS: Of the 455 patients, 228 were randomly assigned to intervention group and 227 patients to the control group. SDD significantly reduced the number of infectious complications compared to control (difference = -0.13, 95 % CI -0.05 to -0.20). No difference was found for QALYs (difference = 0.002, 95 % CI -0.002 to 0.005). Healthcare costs were statistically significantly lower in the intervention group (difference = -€1258, 95 % CI -2751 to -166). The ICER was -9872 €/infectious complication prevented and -820,380 €/QALY gained. For all willingness-to-pay thresholds, the probability that prophylactic SDD was cost-effective compared to standard prophylactic practice alone was 1.0. CONCLUSION: The addition of SDD to the standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective compared to standard prophylactic practice from a healthcare perspective and should be considered as the standard of care.

Safe shortening of antibiotic treatment duration for complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAFE trial): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing 4 and 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment.

INTRODUCTION: A major knowledge gap in the treatment of complicated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is the optimal duration of antibiotic therapy. Safe shortening of antibiotic therapy has the potential to reduce adverse drug events, length of hospital stay and costs. The objective of the SAFE trial is to evaluate whether 4 weeks of antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to 6 weeks in patients with complicated SAB. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SAFE-trial is a multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial evaluating 4 versus 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy for complicated SAB. The study is performed in 15 university hospitals and general hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients are adults with methicillin-susceptible SAB with evidence of deep-seated or metastatic infection and/or predictors of complicated SAB. Only patients with a satisfactory clinical response to initial antibiotic treatment are included. Patients with infected prosthetic material or an undrained abscess of 5 cm or more at day 14 of adequate antibiotic treatment are excluded. Primary outcome is success of therapy after 180 days, a combined endpoint of survival without evidence of microbiologically confirmed disease relapse. Assuming a primary endpoint occurrence of 90% in the 6 weeks group, a non-inferiority margin of 7.5% is used. Enrolment of 396 patients in total is required to demonstrate non-inferiority of shorter antibiotic therapy with a power of 80%. Currently, 152 patients are enrolled in the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating duration of antibiotic therapy for complicated SAB. Non-inferiority of 4 weeks of treatment would allow shortening of treatment duration in selected patients with complicated SAB. This study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee VUmc (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and registered under NL8347 (the Netherlands Trial Register). Results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8347 (the Netherlands Trial Register).

SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study.

STUDY QUESTIONS: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (-30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 2 January 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high versus low-to-moderate intensity resistance and endurance exercise interventions among cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise on physical fitness, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cancer survivors. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-seven cancer survivors participated in the Resistance and Endurance exercise After ChemoTherapy (REACT) study and were randomized to 12 weeks of HI (n = 139) or LMI exercise (n = 138) that had similar exercise types, durations, and frequencies, but different intensities. Measurements were performed at baseline (4-6 weeks after primary treatment), and 12 (i.e., short term) and 64 (i.e., longer term) weeks later. Outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, self-reported fatigue, HRQoL, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs. Linear mixed models were conducted to study (a) differences in effects between HI and LMI exercise at longer term, (b) within-group changes from short term to longer term, and (c) the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective. RESULTS: At longer term, intervention effects on role (ß = 5.9, 95% CI = 0.5; 11.3) and social functioning (ß = 5.7, 95%CI = 1.7; 9.6) were larger for HI compared to those for LMI exercise. No significant between-group differences were found for physical fitness and fatigue. Intervention-induced improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and HRQoL were maintained between weeks 12 and 64, but not for fatigue. From a societal perspective, the probability that HI was cost-effective compared to LMI exercise was 0.91 at 20,000€/QALY and 0.95 at 52,000€/QALY gained, mostly due to significant lower healthcare costs in HI exrcise. CONCLUSIONS: At longer term, we found larger intervention effects on role and social functioning for HI than for LMI exercise. Furthermore, HI exercise was cost-effective with regard to QALYs compared to LMI exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register [NTR2153 [ http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2153 ]] on the 5th of January 2010. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Exercise is recommended to be part of standard cancer care, and HI may be preferred over LMI exercise.

Cost-effectiveness of a combined physical exercise and psychosocial training intervention for children with cancer: Results from the quality of life in motion study.

This study was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a combined physical exercise and psychosocial intervention for children with cancer compared with usual care. Sixty-eight children, aged 8-18 years old, during or within the first year post-cancer treatment were randomised to the intervention (n = 30) and control group (n = 38). Health outcomes included fitness, muscle strength and quality adjusted life years; all administered at baseline, 4- and 12-month follow-up. Costs were gathered by 1 monthly cost questionnaires over 12 months, supplemented by medication data obtained from pharmacies. Results showed no significant differences in costs and effects between the intervention and control group at 12-month follow-up. On average, societal costs were €299 higher in the intervention group than in the control group, but this difference was not significant. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the intervention needs large societal investments to reach reasonable probabilities of cost-effectiveness for quality of life and lower body muscle strength. Based on the results of this study, the intervention is not cost-effective in comparison with usual care.

Ultrasound-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer is cost-saving: results of a cost-benefit analysis.

Ultrasound-guided surgery (USS) has recently been proven to result in a significant reduction of tumour-involved surgical margins, for patients with palpable invasive breast cancer. The objective of this economic evaluation alongside a randomised trial was to evaluate the costs and benefits of USS compared to palpation-guided surgery (PGS). The hospital perspective was used. On the cost side of the analysis, resource use related to baseline treatment was taken into account and on the benefit side, resource use related to additional treatments was included. On the cost side, the difference in costs per patient was €193 (95% CI €153-€233) with higher costs in the USS group. On the benefit side, the difference in costs per patient was -€349 (95% CI -€591 to -€103) with higher costs in the PGS group. This resulted in a cost decrease of -€154 (95% CI -€388 to €81) in the USS group compared to the PGS group. Intra-operative use of a US system during BCS reduces the rate of tumour-involved margins and thereby the costs of additional treatments.