Patient preferences for stress urinary incontinence treatments: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression. SETTING: N=21 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: N=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial. OUTCOMES: Patient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay. RESULTS: N=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for 'improved' to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for 'very much improved' symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £-8022 (£-10 661 to £-5383) and £-10 632 (£-14 077 to £-7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £-5338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance. CONCLUSION: This discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Care processes and outcomes of deprivation across the clinical course of kidney disease: findings from a high-income country with universal healthcare.

BACKGROUND: No single study contrasts the extent and consequences of inequity of kidney care across the clinical course of kidney disease. METHODS: This population study of Grampian (UK) followed incident presentations of acute kidney injury (AKI) and incident estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds of <60, <45 and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 in separate cohorts (2011-2021). The key exposure was area-level deprivation (lowest quintile of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation). Outcomes were care processes (monitoring, prescribing, appointments, unscheduled care), long-term mortality and kidney failure. Modelling involved multivariable logistic regression, negative binomial regression and cause-specific Cox models with and without adjustment of comorbidities. RESULTS: There were 41 313, 51 190, 32 171 and 17 781 new presentations of AKI and eGFR thresholds <60, <45 and <30  mL/min/1.73 m2. A total of 6.1-7.8% of the population was from deprived areas and (versus all others) presented on average 5 years younger, with more diabetes and pulmonary and liver disease. Those from deprived areas were more likely to present initially in hospital, less likely to receive community monitoring, less likely to attend appointments and more likely to have an unplanned emergency department or hospital admission episode. Deprivation had the greatest association with long-term kidney failure at the eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 threshold {adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.87]} and this association decreased with advancing disease severity [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.93-1.28) at eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2), with a similar pattern for mortality. Across all analyses the most detrimental associations of deprivation were an eGFR threshold <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, AKI, males and those <65 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a high-income country with universal healthcare, serious and consistent inequities in kidney care exist. The poorer care and outcomes with area-level deprivation were greater earlier in the disease course.

PROSPECT: 4- and 6-year follow-up of a randomised trial of surgery for vaginal prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to compare the mid-term results of native tissue, biological xenograft and polypropylene mesh surgery for women with vaginal wall prolapse. METHODS: A total of 1348 women undergoing primary transvaginal repair of an anterior and/or posterior prolapse were recruited between January 2010 and August 2013 from 35 UK centres. They were randomised by remote allocation to native tissue surgery, biological xenograft or polypropylene mesh. We performed both 4- and 6-year follow-up using validated patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: At 4 and 6 years post-operation, there was no clinically important difference in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score for any of the treatments. Using a strict composite outcome to assess functional cure at 6 years, we found no difference in cure among the three types of surgery. Half the women were cured at 6 years but only 10.3 to 12% of women had undergone further surgery for prolapse. However, 8.4% of women in the mesh group had undergone further surgery for mesh complications. There was no difference in the incidence of chronic pain or dyspareunia between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At the mid-term outcome of 6 years, there is no benefit from augmenting primary prolapse repairs with polypropylene mesh inlays or biological xenografts. There was no evidence that polypropylene mesh inlays caused greater pain or dyspareunia than native tissue repairs.

Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence is the most common type of urinary incontinence in premenopausal women. Until recently, synthetic mid-urethral slings (mesh/tape) were the standard surgical treatment, if conservative management failed. Adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings are newer, use less mesh and may reduce perioperative morbidity, but it is unclear how their success rates and safety compare with those of standard tension-free mid-urethral slings. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare tension-free standard mid-urethral slings with adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings among women with stress urinary incontinence requiring surgical intervention, in terms of patient-reported effectiveness, health-related quality of life, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). SETTING: The trial was set in 21 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were women aged ≥ 18 years with predominant stress urinary incontinence, undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure. INTERVENTIONS: Single-incision mini-slings, compared with standard mid-urethral slings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported success rates on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 15 months post randomisation (≈ 1 year post surgery), with success defined as outcomes of 'very much improved' or 'much improved'. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms, quality of life and sexual function. RESULTS: A total of 600 participants were randomised. At 15 months post randomisation, adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to tension-free standard mid-urethral slings at the 10% margin for the primary outcome [single-incision mini-sling 79% (212/268) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 76% (189/250), risk difference 4.6, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 11.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Similarly, at 3 years' follow-up, patient-reported success rates in the single-incision mini-sling group were non-inferior to those of the standard mid-urethral sling group at the 10% margin [single-incision mini-sling 72% (177/246) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 67% (157/235), risk difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 12.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Tape/mesh exposure rates were higher for single-incision mini-sling participants, with 3.3% (9/276) [compared with 1.9% (5/261) in the standard mid-urethral sling group] reporting tape exposure over the 3 years of follow-up. The rate of groin/thigh pain was slightly higher in the single-incision mini-sling group at 15 months [single-incision mini-sling 15% (41/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 12% (31/261), risk difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 7.1%]; however, by 3 years, the rate of pain was slightly higher among the standard mid-urethral sling participants [single-incision mini-sling 14% (39/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 15% (39/261), risk difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to 2.5]. At the 3-year follow-up, quality of life and sexual function outcomes were similar in both groups: for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, the mean difference in scores was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.8; p = 0.24), and for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association-Revised, it was 0 (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.1; p = 0.92). However, more women in the single-incision mini-sling group reported dyspareunia [12% (17/145), compared with 4.8% (7/145) in the standard mid-urethral sling group, risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 1.9% to 12.1%]. The base-case economics results showed no difference in costs (-£6, 95% confidence interval -£228 to £208) or quality-adjusted life-years (0.005, 95% confidence interval -0.068 to 0.073) between the groups. There is a 56% probability that single-incision mini-slings will be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data beyond 3 years post randomisation are not available to inform longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to standard mid-urethral slings in patient-reported success rates at up to 3 years' follow-up. FUTURE WORK: Success rates, adverse events, retreatment rates, symptoms, and quality-of-life scores at 10 years' follow-up will help inform long-term effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered as ISRCTN93264234. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Stress urinary incontinence, the involuntary leakage of urine, is a common and distressing condition, particularly for women aged > 40 years. In the UK, it is estimated that 6 million (40%) of this age group have symptoms bothersome enough for doctors to investigate. It causes embarrassment, low self-esteem and even social isolation. Standard surgical treatment used to be a mid-urethral sling made of mesh, inserted, in most cases, under general anaesthetic. Recently, a single-incision mini-sling, using less mesh, has been available under local anaesthetic. A number of small studies have shown that mini-slings have similar success rates to those of standard slings, necessitate shorter hospital stays and are less painful immediately after surgery. However, these results were uncertain and the potential longer-term benefits and disadvantages of both types of sling treatments were unknown. We compared the two types of sling treatments in a randomised trial of 600 women to see if they were equally effective. Success was measured by asking women to report on their symptoms and experiences. We also collected information on safety, quality of life, sexual function, and costs to women and the NHS. Every participant had an equal chance of starting treatment with the standard sling or the mini-sling. Participants were followed up for 3 years. Women allocated to each treatment reported similar success rates, quality of life and sexual function at 3 years. Women who received the new mini-sling had more mesh exposure (3% for the mini-sling vs. 2% for the standard sling) and were more likely to report pain during intercourse (12% vs. 5%) than women who received the standard sling. Both treatments had similar costs. Follow-up to 10 years is under way to establish the long-term benefits and disadvantages.

A Systematic Review of the Evidence for Non-surgical Weight Management for Adults with Severe Obesity: What is Cost Effective and What are the Implications for the Design of Health Services?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2) increases premature mortality and reduces quality-of-life. Obesity-related disease (ORD) places substantial burden on health systems. This review summarises the cost-effectiveness evidence for non-surgical weight management programmes (WMPs) for adults with severe obesity. RECENT FINDINGS: Whilst evidence shows bariatric surgery is often cost-effective, there is no clear consensus on the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical WMPs. Thirty-two studies were included. Most were short-term evaluations that did not capture the long-term costs and consequences of ORD. Decision models often included only a subset of relevant ORDs, and made varying assumptions about the rate of weight regain over time. A lack of sensitivity analyses limited interpretation of results. Heterogeneity in the definition of WMPs and usual care prevents formal evidence synthesis. We were unable to establish the most cost-effective WMPs. Addressing these limitations may help future studies provide more robust cost-effectiveness evidence for decision makers.

Single-Incision Mini-Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, synthetic midurethral slings (made of mesh or tape) were the standard surgical treatment worldwide for female stress urinary incontinence, if conservative management failed. Data comparing the effectiveness and safety of newer single-incision mini-slings with those of standard midurethral slings are limited. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing mini-slings with midurethral slings among women at 21 U.K. hospitals during 36 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was patient-reported success (defined as a response of very much or much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire) at 15 months after randomization (approximately 1 year after surgery). The noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 298 women were assigned to receive mini-slings and 298 were assigned to receive midurethral slings. At 15 months, success was reported by 212 of 268 patients (79.1%) in the mini-sling group and by 189 of 250 patients (75.6%) in the midurethral-sling group (adjusted risk difference, 4.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.7 to 11.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority). At the 36-month follow-up, success was reported by 177 of 246 patients (72.0%) and by 157 of 235 patients (66.8%) in the respective groups (adjusted risk difference, 5.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 12.8). At 36 months, the percentage of patients with groin or thigh pain was 14.1% with mini-slings and 14.9% with midurethral slings. Over the 36-month follow-up period, the percentage of patients with tape or mesh exposure was 3.3% with mini-slings and 1.9% with midurethral slings, and the percentage who underwent further surgery for stress urinary incontinence was 2.5% and 1.1%, respectively. Outcomes with respect to quality of life and sexual function were similar in the two groups, with the exception of dyspareunia; among 290 women responding to a validated questionnaire, dyspareunia was reported by 11.7% in the mini-sling group and 4.8% in the midurethral-sling group. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision mini-slings were noninferior to standard midurethral slings with respect to patient-reported success at 15 months, and the percentage of patients reporting success remained similar in the two groups at the 36-month follow-up. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research.).

Current and Projected Financial Burden of Emergency General Surgery for Adults in Scotland's Single Payer Healthcare System: A Cost Analysis of Hospital Admissions.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the current and projected financial burden of EGS hospital admissions in a single-payer healthcare system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: EGS is an important acute care service, which demands significant healthcare resources. EGS admissions and associated costs have increased over time, associated with an aging demographic. The National Health Service is the sole provider of emergency care in Scotland. METHODS: Principal, high and low Scottish population projections were obtained for 2016 until 2041. EGS admission data were projected using an ordinary least squares linear regression model. An exponential function, fitted to historical length of hospital stay (LOS) data, was used to project future LOS. Historical hospital unit cost per bed day was projected using a linear regression model. EGS cost was calculated to 2041 by multiplying annual projections of population, admission rates, LOS, and cost per bed day. RESULTS: The adult (age >15) Scottish population is projected to increase from 4.5 million to 4.8 million between 2016 and 2041. During this time, EGS admissions are expected to increase from 83,132 to 101,090 per year, cost per bed day from £786 to £1534, and overall EGS cost from £187.3 million to £202.5 million. CONCLUSIONS: The future financial burden of EGS in Scotland is projected to increase moderately between 2016 and 2041. This is in sharp contrast to previous studies from settings such as the United States. However, if no further reductions in LOS or cost per bed day are made, especially for elderly patients, the cost of EGS will rise dramatically.

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

BACKGROUND: New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon. SETTING: UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year). RESULTS: Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach. FUTURE WORK: Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

About 1 in 10 women has pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, and around three of these women require a further operation. The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate surgery for two different types of POP found in women: (1) when the uterus itself has come down ­ the Uterine trial ­ and (2) when a previous hysterectomy has resulted in the top of the vagina coming down ­ the Vault trial. In the Uterine trial, preserving the uterus was compared with removing it vaginally. In the Vault trial, uplifting and supporting the vault prolapse using an abdominal approach was compared with a vaginal approach. Women were asked about their prolapse and other symptoms affecting their quality of life (QoL). The majority of women reported that their prolapse symptoms and QoL improved after surgery. The women's prolapse was also measured by clinical examination before and 12 months after their operation. All of these results were compared between the different procedures. It was found that all the surgical procedures were successful within the 12-month review period. Abdominal surgery in the Vault trial as well as any that was required in the Uterine trial, was, however, slightly less cost-effective. Serious complications and the need for further prolapse surgery were similar in all groups. A small number of women did require additional surgery for prolapse recurrence or for small mesh exposure when additional or prolapse procedures had involved mesh. Women in both trials will be followed up for at least 6 years to determine longer-term costs and consequences.

Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Adults with severe obesity [body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 35 kg/m2] have an increased risk of comorbidities and psychological, social and economic consequences. OBJECTIVES: Systematically review bariatric surgery, weight-management programmes (WMPs) and orlistat pharmacotherapy for adults with severe obesity, and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched (last searched in May 2017). REVIEW METHODS: Four systematic reviews evaluated clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative evidence for adults with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2. Data from meta-analyses populated a microsimulation model predicting costs, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and the most effective lifestyle WMPs over a 30-year time horizon from a NHS perspective, compared with current UK population obesity trends. Interventions were cost-effective if the additional cost of achieving a quality-adjusted life-year is < £20,000-30,000. RESULTS: A total of 131 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 26 UK studies, 33 qualitative studies and 46 cost-effectiveness studies were included. From RCTs, RYGB produced the greatest long-term weight change [-20.23 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.75 to -16.71 kg, at 60 months]. WMPs with very low-calorie diets (VLCDs) produced the greatest weight loss at 12 months compared with no WMPs. Adding a VLCD to a WMP gave an additional mean weight change of -4.41 kg (95% CI -5.93 to -2.88 kg) at 12 months. The intensive Look AHEAD WMP produced mean long-term weight loss of 6% in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (at a median of 9.6 years). The microsimulation model found that WMPs were generally cost-effective compared with population obesity trends. Long-term WMP weight regain was very uncertain, apart from Look AHEAD. The addition of a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. RYGB was cost-effective compared with no surgery and WMPs, but the model did not replicate long-term cost savings found in previous studies. Qualitative data suggested that participants could be attracted to take part in WMPs through endorsement by their health-care provider or through perceiving innovative activities, with WMPs being delivered to groups. Features improving long-term weight loss included having group support, additional behavioural support, a physical activity programme to attend, a prescribed calorie diet or a calorie deficit. LIMITATIONS: Reviewed studies often lacked generalisability to UK settings in terms of participants and resources for implementation, and usually lacked long-term follow-up (particularly for complications for surgery), leading to unrealistic weight regain assumptions. The views of potential and actual users of services were rarely reported to contribute to service design. This study may have failed to identify unpublished UK evaluations. Dual, blinded numerical data extraction was not undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was costly to deliver, but it was the most cost-effective intervention. Adding a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. Most WMPs were cost-effective compared with current population obesity trends. FUTURE WORK: Improved reporting of WMPs is needed to allow replication, translation and further research. Qualitative research is needed with adults who are potential users of, or who fail to engage with or drop out from, WMPs. RCTs and economic evaluations in UK settings (e.g. Tier 3, commercial programmes or primary care) should evaluate VLCDs with long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). Decision models should incorporate relevant costs, disease states and evidence-based weight regain assumptions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016040190. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT).

BACKGROUND: The use of transvaginal mesh and biological graft material in prolapse surgery is controversial and has led to a number of enquiries into their safety and efficacy. Existing trials of these augmentations are individually too small to be conclusive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of prolapse repair involving either synthetic mesh inlays or biological grafts against standard repair in women. METHODS: We did two pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trials for our study (PROSPECT [PROlapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and randomised Controlled Trials]) in 35 centres (a mix of secondary and tertiary referral hospitals) in the UK. We recruited women undergoing primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery by 65 gynaecological surgeons in these centres. We randomly assigned participants by a remote web-based randomisation system to one of the two trials: comparing standard (native tissue) repair alone with standard repair augmented with either synthetic mesh (the mesh trial) or biological graft (the graft trial). We assigned women (1:1:1 or 1:1) within three strata: assigned to one of the three treatment options, comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison of standard repair with graft. Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; masking was obviously not possible for the surgeon. Follow-up was for 2 years after the surgery; the primary outcomes, measured at 1 year and 2 years, were participant-reported prolapse symptoms (i.e. the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) and condition-specific (ie, prolapse-related) quality-of-life scores, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN60695184. FINDINGS: Between Jan 8, 2010, and Aug 30, 2013, we randomly allocated 1352 women to treatment, of whom 1348 were included in the analysis. 865 women were included in the mesh trial (430 to standard repair alone, 435 to mesh augmentation) and 735 were included in the graft trial (367 to standard repair alone, 368 to graft augmentation). Because the analyses were carried out separately for each trial (mesh trial and graft trial) some women in the standard repair arm assigned to all treatment options were included in the standard repair group of both trials. 23 of these women did not receive any surgery (15 in the mesh trial, 13 in the graft trial; five were included in both trials) and were included in the baseline analyses only. Mean POP-SS at 1 year did not differ substantially between comparisons (standard 5·4 [SD 5·5] vs mesh 5·5 [5·1], mean difference 0·00, 95% CI -0·70 to 0·71; p=0·99; standard 5·5 [SD 5·6] vs graft 5·6 [5·6]; mean difference -0·15, -0·93 to 0·63; p=0·71). Mean prolapse-related quality-of-life scores also did not differ between groups at 1 year (standard 2·0 [SD 2·7] vs mesh 2·2 [2·7], mean difference 0·13, 95% CI -0·25 to 0·51; p=0·50; standard 2·2 [SD 2·8] vs graft 2·4 [2·9]; mean difference 0·13, -0·30 to 0·56; p=0·54). Mean POP-SS at 2 years were: standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus mesh 5·3 (5·1), mean difference 0·32, 95% CI -0·39 to 1·03; p=0·37; standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus graft 5·5 (5·7); mean difference 0·32, -0·48 to 1·12; p=0·43. Prolapse-related quality-of-life scores at 2 years were: standard 1·9 (SD 2·5) versus mesh 2·2 (2·6), mean difference 0·15, 95% CI -0·23 to 0·54; p=0·44; standard 2·0 (2·5) versus graft 2·2 (2·8); mean difference 0·10, -0·33 to 0·52; p=0·66. Serious adverse events such as infection, urinary retention, or dyspareunia or other pain, excluding mesh complications, occurred with similar frequency in the groups over 1 year (mesh trial: 31/430 [7%] with standard repair vs 34/435 [8%] with mesh, risk ratio [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·68 to 1·72; p=0·73; graft trial: 23/367 [6%] with standard repair vs 36/368 [10%] with graft, RR 1·57, 0·95 to 2·59; p=0·08). The cumulative number of women with a mesh complication over 2 years in women actually exposed to synthetic mesh was 51 (12%) of 434. INTERPRETATION: Augmentation of a vaginal repair with mesh or graft material did not improve women's outcomes in terms of effectiveness, quality of life, adverse effects, or any other outcome in the short term, but more than one in ten women had a mesh complication. Therefore, follow-up is vital to identify any longer-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects of mesh or graft reinforcement in vaginal prolapse surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research.

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: VUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study - results from the PROSPECT Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh in prolapse surgery is controversial, leading to a number of enquiries into its safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort (CC) study. Allocation was by a remote web-based randomisation system in a 1 :1 : 1 ratio (Primary trial) or 1 : 1 : 2 ratio (Secondary trial), and was minimised on age, type of prolapse repair planned, need for a concomitant continence procedure, need for a concomitant upper vaginal prolapse procedure and surgeon. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to randomisation; participants were unblinded if they requested the information. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedure. SETTING: Thirty-five UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Primary study: 2474 women in the analysis (including 1348 randomised) having primary anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. Secondary study: 398 in the analysis (including 154 randomised) having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. CC3: 215 women having either uterine or vault prolapse repair. INTERVENTIONS: Anterior or posterior repair alone, or with mesh inlay, biological graft or mesh kit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse symptoms [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)]; prolapse-specific QoL; cost-effectiveness [incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)]. RESULTS: Primary trials: adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, mean POP-SS was similar for each comparison {standard 5.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.5] vs. mesh 5.5 (SD 5.1), mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.71; standard 5.5 (SD 5.6) vs. graft 5.6 (SD 5.6), MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.63}. Serious non-mesh adverse effects rates were similar between the groups in year 1 [standard 7.2% vs. mesh 7.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.72; standard 6.3% vs. graft 9.8%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59]. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any other outcome measure. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 2 of 430 (0.5%) for standard repair (trial 1), 46 of 435 (10.6%) for mesh inlay and 2 of 368 (0.5%) for biological graft. The CC findings were comparable. Incremental costs were £363 (95% CI -£32 to £758) and £565 (95% CI £180 to £950) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. Incremental QALYs were 0.071 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.145) and 0.039 (95% CI -0.041 to 0.120) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. A Markov decision model extrapolating trial results over 5 years showed standard repair had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness, but results were surrounded by considerable uncertainty. Secondary trials: there were no statistically significant differences between the randomised groups in any outcome measure, but the sample size was too small to be conclusive. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 7 of 52 (13.5%) for mesh inlay and 4 of 46 (8.7%) for mesh kit, with no mesh exposures for standard repair. CONCLUSIONS: In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results. LIMITATIONS: Women in the Primary trials included some with a previous repair in another compartment. Follow-up is vital to identify any long-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects. FUTURE WORK: Long-term follow-up to at least 6 years after surgery is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60695184. 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. 20, No. 95. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surgical Trial In Traumatic intraCerebral Haemorrhage (STITCH): a randomised controlled trial of Early Surgery compared with Initial Conservative Treatment.

BACKGROUND: While it is accepted practice to remove extradural (EDH) and subdural haematomas (SDH) following traumatic brain injury, the role of surgery in parenchymal traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage (TICH) is controversial. There is no evidence to support Early Surgery in this condition. OBJECTIVES: There have been a number of trials investigating surgery for spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage but none for TICH. This study aimed to establish whether or not a policy of Early Surgery for TICH improves outcome compared with a policy of Initial Conservative Treatment. DESIGN: This was an international multicentre pragmatic parallel group trial. Patients were randomised via an independent telephone/web-based randomisation service. SETTING: Neurosurgical units in 59 hospitals in 20 countries registered to take part in the study. PARTICIPANTS: The study planned to recruit 840 adult patients. Patients had to be within 48 hours of head injury with no more than two intracerebral haematomas greater than 10 ml. They did not have a SDH or EDH that required evacuation or any severe comorbidity that would mean they could not achieve a favourable outcome if they made a complete recovery from their head injury. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to Early Surgery within 12 hours or to Initial Conservative Treatment with delayed evacuation if it became clinically appropriate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) was measured at 6 months via a postal questionnaire. The primary outcome was the traditional dichotomised split into favourable outcome (good recovery or moderate disability) and unfavourable outcome (severe disability, vegetative, dead). Secondary outcomes included mortality and an ordinal assessment of Glasgow Outcome Scale and Rankin Scale. RESULTS: Patient recruitment began in December 2009 but was halted by the funding body because of low UK recruitment in September 2012. In total, 170 patients were randomised from 31 centres in 13 countries: 83 to Early Surgery and 87 to Initial Conservative Treatment. Six-month outcomes were obtained for 99% of 168 eligible patients (82 Early Surgery and 85 Initial Conservative Treatment patients). Patients in the Early Surgery group were 10.5% more likely to have a favourable outcome (absolute benefit), but this difference did not quite reach statistical significance because of the reduced sample size. Fifty-two (63%) had a favourable outcome with Early Surgery, compared with 45 (53%) with Initial Conservative Treatment [odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.21; p = 0.17]. Mortality was significantly higher in the Initial Conservative Treatment group (33% vs. 15%; absolute difference 18.3%; 95% CI 5.7% to 30.9%; p = 0.006). The Rankin Scale and GOSE were significantly improved with Early Surgery using a trend analysis (p = 0.047 and p = 0.043 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first ever trial of surgery for TICH and indicates that Early Surgery may be a valuable tool in the treatment of TICH, especially if the Glasgow Coma Score is between 9 and 12, as was also found in Surgical Trial In spontaneous intraCerebral Haemorrhage (STICH) and Surgical Trial In spontaneous lobar intraCerebral Haemorrhage (STICH II). Further research is clearly warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 19321911. 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. 19, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Early Surgery versus Initial Conservative Treatment in Patients with Traumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage (STITCH[Trauma]): The First Randomized Trial.

Intraparenchymal hemorrhages occur in a proportion of severe traumatic brain injury TBI patients, but the role of surgery in their treatment is unclear. This international multi-center, patient-randomized, parallel-group trial compared early surgery (hematoma evacuation within 12 h of randomization) with initial conservative treatment (subsequent evacuation allowed if deemed necessary). Patients were randomized using an independent randomization service within 48 h of TBI. Patients were eligible if they had no more than two intraparenchymal hemorrhages of 10 mL or more and did not have an extradural or subdural hematoma that required surgery. The primary outcome measure was the traditional dichotomous split of the Glasgow Outcome Scale obtained by postal questionnaires sent directly to patients at 6 months. The trial was halted early by the UK funding agency (NIHR HTA) for failure to recruit sufficient patients from the UK (trial registration: ISRCTN19321911). A total of 170 patients were randomized from 31 of 59 registered centers worldwide. Of 82 patients randomized to early surgery with complete follow-up, 30 (37%) had an unfavorable outcome. Of 85 patients randomized to initial conservative treatment with complete follow-up, 40 (47%) had an unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.35, 1.21; p=0.17), with an absolute benefit of 10.5% (CI, -4.4-25.3%). There were significantly more deaths in the first 6 months in the initial conservative treatment group (33% vs. 15%; p=0.006). The 10.5% absolute benefit with early surgery was consistent with the initial power calculation. However, with the low sample size resulting from the premature termination, we cannot exclude the possibility that this could be a chance finding. A further trial is required urgently to assess whether this encouraging signal can be confirmed.

Comparison of an adjustable anchored single-incision mini-sling, Ajust(®) , with a standard mid-urethral sling, TVT-O(TM) : a health economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of a single-incision mini-sling (SIMS; Ajust(®) , C. R. Bard Inc., New Providence, NJ, USA) compared with a standard mid-urethral sling (SMUS; TVT-O™, Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA) in the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 137 women, in a secondary care setting, were randomized between October 2009 and October 2011 to undergo SIMS placement (n = 69) under local anaesthesia as an opt-out policy or SMUS placement (n = 68) under general anaesthesia. Clinical outcome measures included the patient-reported success rate (Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]) and the impact on the patients' QoL (King's Health Questionnaire [KHQ]). Health economic data (cost and quality-adjusted life year [QALY] data) were compared using linear regression models to generate an incremental cost per QALY estimate, in order to determine a measure of cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analyses investigated uncertainty in the results, and non-parametric bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate a probability of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the KHQ total score (P = 0.27) or the patient-reported success rate (P = 1.00, odds ratio: 0.895; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.344 to 2.330). There was no significant difference in QALYs for the SIMS group compared with the SMUS group (mean difference: -0.003; 95% CI: -0.008 to +0.002). The SIMS was on average less costly, -£142.41 95% CI: (-316.99 to 32.17) and generated cost savings of £48 419 per QALY loss with 94% probability of cost savings to the health services. Taking a wider perspective on the costing analysis by including the wider community benefit associated with the significantly earlier return to work observed in the SIMS group (P = 0.006, 95% CI: 11.756 to 17.217), there was an increase in cost savings to -£477, (95% CI: -823.65 to -129.63), with a probability of 100% of cost savings to the wider economy. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustable anchored SIMS (Ajust), performed under local anaesthesia as an opt-out policy, delivers cost savings to the health service provider when compared with the SMUS (TVT-O), and is likely to be cost-effective up to 1 year after placement. Further research should be undertaken to confirm the results of our study over longer follow-up and should explore patient preferences alongside an adequately powered non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of eltrombopag (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of patients with chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), as part of the their Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Aberdeen Technology Assessment Review (TAR) Group, commissioned to act as the evidence review group (ERG), critically reviewed and supplemented the submitted evidence. This paper describes the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The ERG critically appraised the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the manufacturer, independently searched for relevant literature, conducted a critical appraisal of the submitted economic models and explored the impact of altering some of the key model assumptions as well as combining relevant sensitivity analyses. Three trials were used to inform the safety and efficacy aspects of this submission; however, one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RAISE study) was the principal source of evidence and was used to inform the economic model. Eltrombopag had greater odds of achieving the primary outcome of a platelet count between 50 × 10^9/L and 400 × 10^9/L during the 6-month treatment period than placebo (odds ratio [OR] 8.2, 99% CI 3.6, 18.7). In the eltrombopag group, 50/83 (60%) of non-splenectomized patients and 18/49 (37%) of splenectomized patients achieved this outcome. The median duration of response was 10.9 weeks for eltrombopag (splenectomized 6 and non-splenectomized 13.4) compared with 0 for placebo. Eltrombopag patients required less rescue medication and had lower odds of bleeding events for both the splenectomized and the non-splenectomized patients. For a watch-and-rescue strategy of care, the comparator was placebo and the ERG found that substantial reductions in the cost of eltrombopag are needed before the incremental cost per QALY is less than £30,000. There was significant uncertainty, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) reported varying from £33,561 to £103,500 per QALY (splenectomized) and £39,657 to £150,245 per QALY (non-splenectomized). All costs are presented in £, year 2008 values, as this was the costing year for the manufacturer's model. Other than bleeding, no adverse events were modelled. In relation to the long-term treatment model, the ERG questioned the robustness of the use of non-randomized non-comparative data. The base-case results restricting the time horizon to 2 years and prescribing eltrombopag as second-line treatment post-rituximab were found to be favourable towards eltrombopag. As rituximab is not a licensed treatment for ITP, the ERG were concerned that its inclusion may not be reflective of clinical practice. None of the treatment sequences resulted in an ICER approaching the recommended threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. Eltrombopag appears to be a safe treatment for ITP (although long-term follow-up studies are awaited) and has short-term efficacy. However, NICE found based on the evidence submitted and reviewed that there was no robust evidence on the long-term efficacy or cost effectiveness of eltrombopag and a lack of direct evidence for eltrombopag tested against other relevant comparators.

A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery--the FOCCUS study.

INTRODUCTION: Fluid strategies may impact on patient outcomes in major elective surgery. We aimed to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pre-operative fluid loading in high-risk surgical patients undergoing major elective surgery. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, non-blinded, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial. We sought to recruit 128 consecutive high-risk surgical patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The patients underwent pre-operative fluid loading with 25 ml/kg of Ringer's solution in the six hours before surgery. The control group had no pre-operative fluid loading. The primary outcome was the number of hospital days after surgery with cost-effectiveness as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were recruited within the study time frame in agreement with the funder. The median pre-operative fluid loading volume was 1,875 ml (IQR 1,375 to 2,025) in the fluid group compared to 0 (IQR 0 to 0) in controls with days in hospital after surgery 12.2 (SD 11.5) days compared to 17.4 (SD 20.0) and an adjusted mean difference of 5.5 days (median 2.2 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 11.44; P = 0.07). There was a reduction in adverse events in the fluid intervention group (P = 0.048) and no increase in fluid based complications. The intervention was less costly and more effective (adjusted average cost saving: £2,047; adjusted average gain in benefit: 0.0431 quality adjusted life year (QALY)) and has a high probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative intravenous fluid loading leads to a non-significant reduction in hospital length of stay after high-risk major surgery and is likely to be cost-effective. Confirmatory work is required to determine whether these effects are reproducible, and to confirm whether this simple intervention could allow more cost-effective delivery of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Clinical Trials, ISRCTN32188676.