Exploring diagnostic strategies for memory complaints in older adults: A retrospective general practice database study.

OBJECTIVES: For older people who worry about their memory, their general practitioner (GP) is often the first healthcare professional they turn to. This study aims to increase knowledge of GPs' daily practice on diagnostic strategies for patients who present themselves with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia for the first time in general practice and to explore associations of patients' characteristics with these strategies. METHOD: Retrospective observational study using electronic patient records from patients presenting with memory complaints between 2012 and 2019. The patient records are derived from a Dutch primary care registration network. The decision on diagnostic strategy was extracted and categorized as (1) wait and see, (2) diagnostic testing in primary care, or (3) referral. Patient characteristics (gender, age, general practice, level of comorbidities, chronic polypharmacy, and the number of consultations on memory complaints), fear of developing dementia, and information on why the first consultation on memory complaints was scheduled were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were included. Most patients were cared for within primary care, either for further primary care diagnostics (56.1%) or because a wait-and-see strategy was pursued (14.9%). One-third (28.9%) of patients were referred. Differences between diagnostic strategies in patient characteristics, fear of developing dementia, or reason for first consultation between these diagnostic strategies were not found, nor were these variables predictive of referral. CONCLUSION: Most Dutch patients with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia who seek help from their GP for the first time are cared for in the primary care setting for the following 6 months. The lack of association between included patient characteristics and diagnostic strategies highlights the complexity of the decision-making process on diagnostic testing for dementia in general practice.

Sacral Neuromodulation Versus Conservative Treatment for Refractory Idiopathic Slow-transit Constipation: The Randomized Clinical No.2-Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) versus personalized conservative treatment (PCT) in patients with refractory idiopathic slow-transit constipation (STC). BACKGROUND: Evidence on SNM for idiopathic STC is conflicting and of suboptimal methodological quality. METHODS: The No.2-Trial was a multicenter, open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial performed in 2 Dutch hospitals. Sixty-seven patients with idiopathic STC, a defecation frequency <3 per week and refractory (ie, unresponsive) to maximal conservative (nonoperative) treatment were included. Exclusion criteria included outlet obstruction, rectal prolapse, and previous colon surgery. Patients were randomized (3:2) to SNM (n=41) or PCT (n=26) with randomization minimization between February 21, 2017 and March 12, 2020. In SNM patients, an implantable pulse generator was implanted after a successful 4-week test stimulation. PCT patients received conservative treatment such as laxatives or retrograde colonic irrigation. The primary outcome was treatment success (defined as average defecation frequency ≥3 per week) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included constipation severity, fatigue, quality of life, and adverse events. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat. RESULTS: After 6 months, 22 (53.7%) patients were successfully treated with SNM versus 1 (3.8%) patient with PCT (odds ratio 36.4, 95% CI 3.4-387.5, P =0.003). At 6 months, SNM patients reported lower constipation severity and fatigue scores ( P <0.001) and improved quality of life compared with PCT ( P <0.001). Eight serious adverse events (6 SNM, 2 PCT) and 78 adverse events (68 SNM, 10 PCT) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: SNM is a promising surgical treatment option in a homogeneous group of adults and adolescents with refractory idiopathic STC. No.2-Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02961582.

Is a preoperative multidisciplinary team meeting (cost)effective to improve outcome for high-risk adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: the PREPARATION study-a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: As a result of increased life expectancy and improved care for patients suffering from chronic disease, the number of patients with multimorbidity requiring surgical intervention is increasing. For complex surgical patients, it is essential to balance the potential benefits of surgical treatment against the risk of permanent loss of functional capacity and quality of life due to complications. European and US guidelines on perioperative care recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients. However, the evidence underlying benefits from preoperative MDT meetings with all relevant perioperative specialties present is limited. The current study aims to investigate the effect of implementation of preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery on serious adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: PREPARATION is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 14 Dutch hospitals without currently established preoperative MDT meeting. The intervention, preoperative MDT meetings, will be implemented sequentially with seven blocks of 2 hospitals switching from control (preoperative screening as usual) to the intervention every 3 months. Each hospital will be randomized to one of seven blocks. We aim to include 1200 patients. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include (cost)effectiveness, functional outcome, and quality of life for up to 12 months. DISCUSSION: PREPARATION is the first study to assess the effectiveness of a preoperative MDT meeting for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients in the presence of an anesthesiologist. If the results suggest that preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients are (cost)-effective, the current study facilitates implementation of preoperative MDT meetings in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05703230. Registered on 11/09/2022.

Safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in the Netherlands (BICAT-NL study): a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In an ageing population, efficiency improvements are required to assure future accessibility of cataract care. We aim to address remaining knowledge gaps by evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). We hypothesised that ISBCS is non-inferior to DSBCS, regarding safety and effectiveness, and being superior in cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, which included participants from ten Dutch hospitals. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, underwent expected uncomplicated surgery, and had no increased risk of endophthalmitis or refractive surprise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the ISBCS (intervention) group or DSBCS (conventional procedure) group, using a web-based system stratified by centre and axial length. Participants and outcome assessors were not masked to the treatment groups because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of second eyes with a target refractive outcome of 1·0 dioptre (D) or less 4 weeks postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of -5% for ISBCS versus DSBCS. For the trial-based economic evaluation, the primary endpoint was the incremental societal costs per quality-adjusted life-year. All analyses were done by a modified intention-to-treat principle. Costs were calculated by multiplying volumes of resource use with unit cost prices and converted to 2020 Euros (€) and US$. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03400124, and is now closed for recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 4, 2018, and July 10, 2020, a total of 865 patients were randomly assigned to either the ISBCS group (427 [49%] patients; 854 eyes) or DSBCS group (438 [51%] patients; 876 eyes). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of second eyes with a target refraction of 1·0 D or less was 97% (404 of 417 patients) in the ISBCS group versus 98% (407 of 417) in the DSBCS group. The percentage difference was -1% (90% CI -3 to 1; p=0·526), thereby establishing non-inferiority for ISBCS compared with DSBCS. Endophthalmitis was not observed or reported in either group. Adverse events were comparable between groups, with only a significant difference in disturbing anisometropia (p=0·0001). Societal costs were €403 (US$507) lower with ISBCS than with DSBCS. The cost-effectiveness probability of ISBCS versus DSBCS was 100% across the willingness-to-pay range of €2500-80 000 (US$3145-100 629) per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: Our results showed non-inferiority of ISBCS versus DSBCS regarding effectiveness outcomes, comparable safety, and superior cost-effectiveness of ISBCS. National cost savings could amount to €27·4 million (US$34·5 million) annually, advocating for ISBCS if strict inclusion criteria are applied. FUNDING: Research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and Dutch Ophthalmological Society.

Active monitoring versus an abduction device for treatment of infants with centered dysplastic hips: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (TReatment with Active Monitoring (TRAM)-Trial).

BACKGROUND: Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH) is one of the most common pediatric orthopedic disorders, affecting 1-3% of all newborns. The optimal treatment of centered DDH is currently under debate. This randomized controlled trial aims to study the (cost-)effectiveness of active monitoring versus abduction treatment for infants with centered DDH. METHODS: This is a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial studying the (cost-)effectiveness of active monitoring versus abduction treatment for infants with centered DDH in fourteen hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 800 infants with centered DDH (Graf IIa-/IIb/IIc), aged 10-16 weeks, will be randomly allocated to the active monitoring or abduction treatment group. Infants will be followed up until the age of 24 months. The primary outcome is the rate of normal hips, defined as an acetabular index lower than 25 degrees on an antero-posterior radiograph, at the age of 12 months. Secondary outcomes are the rate of normal hips at the age of 24 months, complications, time to hip normalization, the relation between baseline patient characteristics and the rate of normal hips, compliance, costs, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the infant, HRQoL of the parents/caregivers, and parent/caregiver satisfaction with the treatment protocol. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this randomized controlled trial will contribute to improving current care-as-usual for infants with centered DDH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NL9714, registered September 6, 2021. https://clinicaltrialregister.nl/en/trial/29596.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MicroShunt implantation versus standard trabeculectomy for open-angle glaucoma (a SIGHT study): study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Trabeculectomy is the "gold standard" initial surgical procedure for open-angle glaucoma worldwide. During the last decade, the introduction of less invasive procedures, including new bleb-forming surgery such as the MicroShunt, has altered the approach of glaucoma management. At present, there is insufficient evidence comparing the effectiveness between these procedures nor versus trabeculectomy. Furthermore, there is no data available on patient impact and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to address this gap in evidence and establish whether MicroShunt implantation is non-inferior compared to trabeculectomy with regard to effectiveness and whether it is cost-effective. METHODS: A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (RCT) studying open-angle glaucoma with an indication for surgery will be conducted. Patients with previous ocular surgery except for phacoemulsification are excluded, as are patients with ocular comorbidity compromising the visual field or requiring a combined procedure. After informed consent is obtained, patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention, a PRESERFLO™ MicroShunt implantation, or the control group, trabeculectomy, using block randomisation (blocks of 2, 4 or 6 patients). In total, 124 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre. The primary endpoint will be intraocular pressure (IOP) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include IOP-lowering medication use, treatment failure, visual acuity, visual field progression, additional interventions, adverse events, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and cost-effectiveness. Study outcomes will be measured up to 12 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: This study protocol describes the design of a multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. To this date, cost-effectiveness studies evaluating the MicroShunt have not been undertaken. This multicentre RCT will provide more insight into whether MicroShunt implantation is non-inferior compared to standard trabeculectomy regarding postoperative IOP and whether MicroShunt implantation is cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03931564 , Registered 30 April 2019.

Picking Up the Threads: Long-Term Outcomes of the Sutured Haemorrhoidopexy: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of the sutured haemorrhoidopexy (SH) in patients with haemorrhoidal disease (HD). METHODS: A retrospective study was performed, assessing the following treatment characteristics: number of sutures needed; operation time; perioperative complications; postoperative pain; hospital stay. The short- and long-term postoperative complications, HD recurrence and data on current HD symptoms were assessed according to the Core Outcome Set for HD. RESULTS: Between January 2009 and December 2021, 149 patients with HD underwent a SH. One-hundred and forty-five patients were included, with a mean age of 61 years (±12.8), of which 70 were women (48.3%). Patients were predominantly diagnosed with grade III (37.2%) HD and the median follow-up was nine years (5-11). Perioperative complications occurred in four cases (2.8%). In two patients (1.4%), short-term postoperative complications were reported, and in seven patients (6.2%), long-term complications were reported. The cumulative efficacy in terms of freedom of recurrence was 88.3% (95% CI, 83.1-93.5) at six months, 80.0% (95% CI, 73.5-86.5) at one year, and 67.7% (95% CI, 59.7-75.7) at five years. CONCLUSIONS: Sutured haemorrhoidopexy is a safe treatment for patients with HD and can be proposed as a minimally invasive surgical treatment if basic and outpatient procedures fail.

Effects of an Explicit Value Clarification Method With Computer-Tailored Advice on the Effectiveness of a Web-Based Smoking Cessation Decision Aid: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Smoking continues to be a driver of mortality. Various forms of evidence-based cessation assistance exist; however, their use is limited. The choice between them may also induce decisional conflict. Offering decision aids (DAs) may be beneficial; however, insights into their effective elements are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the added value of an effective element (ie, an "explicit value clarification method" paired with computer-tailored advice indicating the most fitting cessation assistance) of a web-based smoking cessation DA. METHODS: A web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted among smokers motivated to stop smoking within 6 months. The intervention group received a DA with the aforementioned elements, and the control group received the same DA without these elements. The primary outcome measure was 7-day point prevalence abstinence 6 months after baseline (time point 3 [t=3]). Secondary outcome measures were 7-day point prevalence of abstinence 1 month after baseline (time point 2 [t=2]), evidence-based cessation assistance use (t=2 and t=3), and decisional conflict (immediately after DA; time point 1). Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to assess the outcomes. Analyses were conducted following 2 (decisional conflict) and 3 (smoking cessation) outcome scenarios: complete cases, worst-case scenario (assuming that dropouts still smoked), and multiple imputations. A priori sample size calculation indicated that 796 participants were needed. The participants were mainly recruited on the web (eg, social media). All the data were self-reported. RESULTS: Overall, 2375 participants were randomized (intervention n=1164, 49.01%), of whom 599 (25.22%; intervention n=275, 45.91%) completed the DAs, and 276 (11.62%; intervention n=143, 51.81%), 97 (4.08%; intervention n=54, 55.67%), and 103 (4.34%; intervention n=56, 54.37%) completed time point 1, t=2, and t=3, respectively. More participants stopped smoking in the intervention group (23/63, 37%) than in the control group (14/52, 27%) after 6 months; however, this was only statistically significant in the worst-case scenario (crude P=.02; adjusted P=.04). Effects on the secondary outcomes were only observed for smoking abstinence after 1 month (15/55, 27%, compared with 7/46, 15%, in the crude and adjusted models, respectively; P=.02) and for cessation assistance uptake after 1 month (26/56, 46% compared with 18/47, 38% only in the crude model; P=.04) and 6 months (38/61, 62% compared with 26/50, 52%; crude P=.01; adjusted P=.02) but only in the worst-case scenario. Nonuse attrition was 34.19% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, we cannot confidently recommend the inclusion of explicit value clarification methods and computer-tailored advice. However, they might result in higher nonuse attrition rates, thereby limiting their potential. As a lack of statistical power may have influenced the outcomes, we recommend replicating this study with some adaptations based on the lessons learned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL8270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8270. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/21772.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.  With regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

A descriptive systematic review of the relationship between personality traits and quality of life of women with non-metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is an important patient-reported outcome that has been studied extensively as an endpoint. There is a growing interest in factors that may influence QoL, such as personality. This descriptive systematic review examined the relationship between personality and QoL in women with non-metastatic breast cancer.  METHODS: On November 24th, 2020, with a update on March 7th, 2022, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and Embase were systematically searched for studies that assessed the direct relationship between personality traits and QoL among adult women diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer. The National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment Tool was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. Three reviewers independently extracted data regarding objectives, population, setting, design, method, outcome measurements and key results. The results are descriptively reported. RESULTS: Twelve studies (6 cohort studies and 6 cross-sectional studies) were included. Three studies were rated as poor, one study was rated as good, and the remaining studies were rated as moderate. There was a small to moderate effect of personality on QoL as correlation coefficients ranged from 0.10 to 0.77, and the explained variance ranged from 4 to 43%. The (strength of the) relationship depended on the personality trait and QoL domain that was measured and was most apparent for the personality traits 'optimism' and 'trait anxiety' on psychosocial QoL domains. The results for the personality traits (unmitigated) agency, agreeableness, conscientiousness, novelty seeking, and self-efficacy indicated a smaller but statistically significant correlation between these personality traits and QoL. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that personality affects QoL in women with non-metastatic breast cancer and thus provides evidence that personality traits are indeed important influential factors of QoL. It is therefore strongly recommended for all future QoL research to measure personality traits and use these variables as predictive factors, as they are needed to accurately interpret QoL. Information regarding personality traits provide physicians and patients with an interpretation of low or deterioration of QoL, which could guide physicians to improve their patients' health outcomes and subsequently QoL using psycho-oncological support or treatment.

Ophthalmologists' attitudes toward immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery: Dutch national survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate current practice patterns of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) in the Netherlands and assess ophthalmologists' attitudes toward performing ISBCS in future cataract care. SETTING: Dutch ophthalmic society members. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study (national survey). METHODS: An electronic survey on ISBCS was sent as part of an annual survey on cataract practice patterns to members of the Dutch ophthalmic society. Questions regarding current ISBCS practice patterns, willingness to perform ISBCS routinely in future care, reasons for performing ISBCS, and reasons for not performing ISBCS were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 237 (45.6%) of 520 survey recipients responded to the overall survey. Data on the ISBCS questions were available from 227 respondents. 62 ophthalmologists (27.3%) currently performed ISBCS, predominantly in low patient volumes (90.3% on 1 to 5 patients per month). However, 108 (47.6%) of 227 ophthalmologists considered performing ISBCS routinely in future practice. Procedures for which ISBCS was mainly considered included age-related cataract surgery using topical and general anesthesia. Availability of separate products and instruments for both eyes and patient advantages were considered of high importance when performing ISBCS. Main reasons for not performing ISBCS included the risk for endophthalmitis and potential medicolegal aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Although ISBCS is currently not a routine procedure in the Netherlands, it is considered by almost 50% of surgeons. To improve implementation on a national level, potential barriers identified in this survey (fear of bilateral endophthalmitis, potential medicolegal issues, and a lack of availability of separate products for both eyes) should be addressed.

Economic evaluation of prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetic patients: ESCRS PREMED study report 6.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatments against cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetic patients. SETTING: 7 ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands and Belgium. DESIGN: Prospective trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a European multicenter randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Diabetic patients (n = 163) undergoing uneventful cataract surgery were randomized to perioperative subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide (n = 36), perioperative intravitreal bevacizumab (n = 36), combination treatment (n = 45), or no additional treatment (control group, n = 46). The cost analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective within a 12-week postoperative time horizon. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; cost per QALY). RESULTS: The mean total healthcare costs and QALYs were as follows: triamcinolone group €1827 (U.S. dollars [$] 2295)/0.166; bevacizumab group €2050 ($2575)/0.144; combination group €2027 ($2546)/0.166; and control group €2041 ($2564)/0.156. Bevacizumab and control treatment were most costly and least effective. The ICER was €321 984 ($404 503) per QALY for the combination group compared with that of the triamcinolone group. Assuming the willingness-to-pay as €20 000 ($25 126) per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability was 70% and 23% in the triamcinolone and combination groups, respectively. No patient who received triamcinolone developed clinically significant macular edema (CSME). A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis based on this outcome showed a clear preference for triamcinolone. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients, subconjunctival triamcinolone was effective in preventing CSME after cataract surgery. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that triamcinolone is also cost-effective.

Decision aids to facilitate decision making around behavior change in the field of health promotion: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To broadly synthesize literature regarding decision aids (DAs) supporting decision making about diet, physical activity, sleeping and substance use a scoping review was performed. METHODS: Multiple sources were used: (1) Scientific literature searches, (2) excluded references from a Cochrane review regarding DAs for treatments and screenings, and (3) results from additional searches. Interventions had to (1) support informed decision making and (2) provide information and help to choose between at least two options. Two researchers screened titles and abstracts. Relevant information was extracted descriptively. RESULTS: Thirty-five scientific articles and four DAs (grey literature) were included. Results were heterogeneous. Twenty-nine (94%) studies described substance use DAs. All DAs offered information and value and/or preference clarification. Many other elements were included (e.g., goal-setting). DA's effects were mixed. Few studies used standardized measures, e.g., decisional conflict (n = 4, 13%). Some positive behavioral effects were reported: e.g., smoking abstinence (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: This research shows only some positive behavioral effects of DAs. However, studies reported heterogeneous results/outcomes, impeding knowledge synthesis. Areas of improvement were identified, e.g., establishing which intervention elements are effective regarding health behavior decision making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: DAs can potentially be beneficial in supporting people to change health behaviors - especially regarding smoking.

Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. RESULTS: After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Economic evaluation of prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in patients without diabetes: ESCRS PREMED study report 4.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic treatments against cystoid macular edema (CME) after cataract surgery in patients without diabetes. SETTING: Seven ophthalmology clinics in the Netherlands and Belgium. DESIGN: Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a European multicenter randomized clinical trial (ESCRS PREMED). METHODS: Patients without diabetes planned for expected uneventful cataract surgery were randomized to topical bromfenac (Yellox, n = 242), topical dexamethasone (n = 242), or a combination treatment (n = 238). All relevant resources from a healthcare perspective were included in the cost analysis within a time horizon of 12 weeks postoperatively. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The main cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on the cost per QALY. RESULTS: The study comprised 722 patients without diabetes. Total healthcare costs and QALYs were € 447 (US $562) and 0.174 in the bromfenac group, €421 (US $529) and 0.179 in the dexamethasone group, and €442 (US $565) and 0.182 in the combination group. Bromfenac was most costly and least effective (ie, strongly dominated). The ICER was €6544 (US $8221) per QALY for the combination group compared with the dexamethasone group. Assuming that the willingness to pay is € 20 000 (US $25 126) per QALY, the cost-effectiveness probability was 3%, 32%, and 65% in the bromfenac, dexamethasone, and combination groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without diabetes, combination treatment with topical bromfenac and dexamethasone was effective and cost-effective in preventing CME after cataract surgery compared with treatment with either drug alone.

An Autonomy-Supportive Online Decision Aid to Assist Smokers in Choosing Evidence-Based Cessation Assistance: Development Process and Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) may be used to facilitate an autonomous, informed decision to cease smoking and promote the uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance (ie, behavioral support, nicotine replacement therapy, or prescription medication). However, knowledge is lacking regarding their effective elements and (cost-)effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We describe the development process of an online DA (called "VISOR") that helps smokers to choose evidence-based cessation assistance. Additionally, we provide a description of the protocol of an ongoing randomized controlled trial in which the DA containing an explicit value clarification method (VCM) and tailored advice is compared with a DA without an explicit VCM and tailored advice. METHODS: The development of "VISOR" was based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines. Viewpoints of end users (collected through 20 interviews with smokers) and clinical and scientific experts (assessed using 2 Delphi studies with 24 scientists and 38 clinicians) were assessed regarding cessation tool decision making and preferred DA content. These findings, together with principles from the Self-Determination Theory, served as input for the development of the online DA. A first DA prototype was alpha-tested in September 2019 and beta-tested for usability in December 2019; feedback was incorporated and resulted in a final version. The final DA contains (1) an information section, (2) an optional knowledge quiz, (3) a brief smoking assessment, (4) intuitive decision, (5) intermediate advice, (6) an explicit VCM, (7) tailored advice, and (8) access information. A randomized controlled trial is currently being conducted to assess the DA's (cost-)effectiveness compared to a DA that does not include the explicit VCM and the tailored advice; specifically, the DA's effect on smoking abstinence, uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance, smoking abstinence mediated through uptake of evidence-based cessation assistance, and decisional conflict are investigated. Participants are randomly allocated to receive access to 1 of the 2 DAs and are asked to complete 5 questionnaires (including the baseline questionnaire) over a period of 12 months. To evaluate the effects of the DA on the outcome measures, logistic and linear regression analyses as well as mediation analyses will be carried out. An economic evaluation will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Data regarding the effect of the VISOR DA are currently being collected, and data collection is expected to be concluded in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: By making use of an iterative process that integrated different stakeholders' perspectives (including end users), we were able to systematically design an evidence-based DA. The study will contribute to the current knowledge regarding smoking cessation DA application, the added value of explicit VCMs, and the effect of behavioral and informed decision-making outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL8270; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8270. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21772.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rubber band ligation versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (Napoleon trial): Study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment option in recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (HD), due to a lack of solid evidence. The Napoleon trial aims to provide high-level evidence on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeat rubber band ligation (RBL) versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent HD. METHODS: This is a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Patients with recurrent HD grade II and III, ≥18 years of age and who had at least two RBL treatments in the last three years are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria include previous rectal or anal surgery, rectal radiation, pre-existing sphincter injury or otherwise pathologies of the colon and rectum, pregnancy, presence of hypercoagulability disorders, and medically unfit for surgery (ASA > III). Between June 2020 and May 2022, 558 patients will be randomized to receive either: (1) RBL, (2) sutured mucopexy, or (3) haemorrhoidectomy. The primary outcomes are recurrence after 52 weeks and patient-reported symptoms measured by the PROM-HISS. Secondary outcomes are impact on daily life, treatment satisfaction, early and late complication rates, health-related quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in societal costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (based on EQ-5D-5L), and healthcare costs per recurrence avoided. DISCUSSION: The best treatment option for recurrent HD remains unknown. The comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies in a randomized controlled trial will provide high-level evidence on the most (cost-) effective treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04101773.

Oncological Outcomes and Hospital Costs of the Treatment in Patients With Rectal Cancer: Watch-and-Wait Policy and Standard Surgical Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the costs of the current treatment strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer, in which patients with a clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy are treated in a watch-and-wait policy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to present the oncological outcome and hospital costs of patients with a complete response after chemoradiotherapy (watch-and-wait policy) and patients with an incomplete response after chemoradiotherapy (total mesorectal excision). DESIGN: This was a cohort study. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at an academic and a nonacademic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer received either a watch-and-wait policy or total mesorectal excision depending on their clinical response to chemoradiotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Watch-and-wait policy and total mesorectal excision were the treatments applied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were overall, local recurrence-free, and distant metastasis-free survival and hospital costs over a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 292 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were included. Mean age was 65.1 years, and 64.7% were men. One hundred five patients were included in the watch-and-wait subgroup, and 187 patients were in the total mesorectal excision subgroup. Both subgroups showed good oncological outcomes. Hospital costs consisted of 5 categories: costs of primary surgery, costs of adjuvant chemotherapy, costs of examinations, costs of additional surgery, and costs of treatment of regrowth/metastasis. The mean costs per patient were &OV0556;6713 (watch-and-wait subgroup) and &OV0556;17,108 (total mesorectal excision subgroup) over the first 2 years. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the following: costs were only from a hospital perspective, follow-up was 2 years, the study was retrospective in part, and there was no comparative study. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was good in both subgroups and comparable to literature. The mean costs per patient differ between the watch-and-wait subgroup (&OV0556;6713) and the total mesorectal excision subgroup (&OV0556;17,108). No comparison between the groups could be made. Based on the results of this study, the current strategy, where patients with a clinical complete response are treated in a watch-and-wait policy, and patients with an incomplete response are treated with total mesorectal excision, is likely to be (cost)saving. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B177. RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS Y COSTOS HOSPITALARIOS EN EL TRATAMIENTO DE PACIENTES CON CANCER DE RECTO: ACTITUD DE ESPERA-VIGILANCIA Y TRATAMIENTO QUIRÚRGICO ESTANDARD: Se sabe poco sobre el costo del tratamiento actual en casos de cancer de recto localmente avanzado, cuando se aplica una política de vigilancia y espera en aquellos pacientes que presentan una respuesta clínica completa después de radio-quimioterapia.El propósito final del presente estudio es dar a conocer el resultado oncológico y los costos hospitalarios de los pacientes que presentan una respuesta clínica completa después de radio-quimioterapia (actitud de vigilancia-espera) y los pacientes con una respuesta incompleta después luego de radio-quimioterapia (excisión total del mesorrecto-ETM).Estudio de cohortes.Hospitales académicos y no académicos.Todos aquellos pacientes tratados por un cáncer de recto localmente avanzado y que fueron seguidos con una política de vigilancia y espera o la ETM, en función de la respuesta clínica a la radio-quimioterapia.Políticas de vigilancia-espera, excisión total del mesorrecto.Sobrevida global libre de recurrencia local, metástasis a distancia, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y costos hospitalarios durante un período de seguimiento de dos años.Se incluyeron 292 pacientes diagnosticados de cancer de recto localmente avanzado. La edad media fue de 65,1 años, 64,7% eran de sexo masculino. Se incluyeron 105 pacientes en el subgrupo de vigilancia-espera, y 187 en el subgrupo de excisión total del mesorrecto. Ambos subgrupos mostraron optimos resultados oncológicos. Los costos hospitalarios se dividieron en cinco categorías: costos de cirugía primaria; costos de quimioterapia adyuvante; costos de exámenes; costos de cirugía adicional; y costos del tratamiento de rebrote / metástasis. Los costos medios por paciente fueron de &OV0556; 6.713 (subgrupo de espera-vigilancia) y &OV0556; 17.108 (subgrupo de excisión total del mesorrecto) durante los primeros dos años.Analisis de costos desde una perspectiva hospitalaria durante un seguimiento de dos años, estudio parcialmente retrospectivo, no comparativo.La sobrevida general fue optima en ambos subgrupos y comparable con la literatura. El costo promedio por paciente difiere entre el subgrupo de vigilancia y espera (&OV0556; 6.713) con el subgrupo de la ETM(&OV0556; 17.108). No se pudieron comparar definitivamente ambos grupos. Basados en los resultados del presente estudio, es probable que la estrategia actual, en la que los pacientes con respuesta clínica completa sean tratados con una política de vigilancia y espera, presenten muy probablemente un cierto ahorro en el costo con relación a los pacientes con una respuesta incompleta tratados con excisión total del mesorrecto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B177. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Smoker profiles and their influence on smokers' intention to use a digital decision aid aimed at the uptake of evidence-based smoking cessation tools: An explorative study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based smoking cessation support tools (EBSTs) can double the quitting chances, but uptake among smokers is low. A digital decision aid (DA) could help smokers choose an EBST in concordance with their values and preferences, but it is unclear which type of smokers are interested in a digital DA. We hypothesized that smokers' general decision-making style (GDMS) could be used to identify early adopters. This study therefore aimed to identify smoker profiles based on smokers' GDMS and investigate these profiles' association with intention to use a digital DA. DESIGN: A cross-sectional dataset (N = 200 smokers intending to quit) was used to perform a hierarchical cluster analysis based on smokers' GDMS scores. METHODS: Clusters were compared on demographic and socio-cognitive variables. Mediation analyses were conducted to see if the relationship between cluster membership and intention was mediated through socio-cognitive variables (e.g., attitude). RESULTS: Two clusters were identified; " Avoidant Regretters " (n = 134) were more avoidant, more regretful and tended to depend more on others in their decision making, while " Intuitive Non-regretters " (n = 66) were more spontaneous and intuitive in their decision making. Cluster membership was significantly related to intention to use a DA, with " Avoidant Regretters " being more interested. Yet, this association ceased to be significant when corrected for socio-cognitive variables (e.g., attitude). This indicates that cluster membership affected intention via socio-cognitive variables. CONCLUSIONS: The GDMS can be used to identify smokers who are interested in a digital DA early on. As such, the GDMS can be used to tailor recruitment and DA content.