Randomised controlled trial of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide in eyes undergoing vitreoretinal surgery following open globe trauma: The ASCOT study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide (TA) given at the time of vitreoretinal surgery following open globe trauma (OGT). METHODS: A phase 3, multicentre, double-masked randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing vitrectomy following OGT comparing adjunctive TA (intravitreal and subtenons) against standard care (2014-2020). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter improvement in corrected visual acuity (VA) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included: change in ETDRS, retinal detachment (RD) secondary to PVR, retinal reattachment, macular reattachment, tractional RD, number of operations, hypotony, elevated intraocular pressure and quality of life. RESULTS: 280 patients were randomised over 75 months, of which 259 completed the study. 46.9% (n=61/130) of patients in the treatment group had a 10-letter improvement in VA compared with 43.4% (n=56/129) of the control group (difference 3.5% (95% CI -8.6% to 15.6%), OR=1.03 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.75), p=0.908)). Secondary outcome measures also failed to show any treatment benefit. For two of the secondary outcome measures, stable complete retinal and macular reattachment, outcomes were worse in the treatment group compared with controls, respectively, 51.6% (n=65/126) vs 64.2% (n=79/123), OR=0.59 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.99), and 54.0% (n=68/126) vs 66.7% (n=82/123), OR=0.59 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.98), for TA vs control. CONCLUSION: The use of combined intraocular and sub-Tenons capsule TA is not recommended as an adjunct to vitrectomy surgery following OGT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02873026.

A randomised controlled trial of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide in eyes undergoing vitreoretinal surgery for open globe trauma - the ASCOT study.

Background: Eyes sustaining open globe trauma are at high risk of severe visual impairment. Proliferative vitreoretinopathy is the most common cause of retinal detachment and visual loss in eyes with open globe trauma. There is evidence from experimental studies and pilot clinical trials that the use of adjunctive steroid medication triamcinolone acetonide can reduce the incidence of proliferative vitreoretinopathy and improve outcomes of surgery for open globe trauma. Objective: The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma or ASCOT study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide given at the time of vitreoretinal surgery for open globe trauma. Design: A phase 3 multicentre double-masked randomised controlled trial randomising patients undergoing vitrectomy following open globe trauma to either adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide or standard care. Setting: Hospital vitreoretinal surgical services dealing with open globe trauma. Participants: Patients undergoing vitrectomy surgery who had sustained open globe trauma. Interventions: Triamcinolone acetonide 4 mg/0.1 ml into the vitreous cavity and 40 mg/1 ml sub-Tenon's or standard vitreoretinal surgery and postoperative care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement in corrected visual acuity at six months. Secondary outcomes included retinal detachment secondary to proliferative vitreoretinopathy, retinal reattachment, macula reattachment, tractional retinal detachment, number of operations, hypotony, elevated intraocular pressure and quality of life. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol Five Domain and Visual Function Questionnaire 25 questionnaires. Results: A total of 280 patients were randomised; 129 were analysed from the control group and 130 from the treatment group. The treatment group appeared, by chance, to have more severe pathology on presentation. The primary outcome (improvement in visual acuity) and principal secondary outcome (change in visual acuity) did not demonstrate any treatment benefit for triamcinolone acetonide. The proportion of patients with improvement in visual acuity was 47% for triamcinolone acetonide and 43% for standard care (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.75, p = 0.908); the baseline adjusted mean difference in the six-month change in visual acuity was -2.65 (95% confidence interval -9.22 to 3.92, p = 0.430) for triamcinolone acetonide relative to control. Similarly, the secondary outcome measures failed to show any treatment benefit. For two of the secondary outcome measures, stable complete retinal reattachment and stable macular retinal reattachment, outcomes for the treatment group were significantly worse for triamcinolone acetonide at the 5% level (respectively, odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.99, p = 0.044 and odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.98, p = 0.041) compared with control in favour of control. The cost of the intervention was £132 per patient. Health economics outcome measures (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, Visual Function Questionnaire 25 and EuroQol Five Dimensions) did not demonstrate any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusions: The use of combined intraocular and sub-Tenon's capsule triamcinolone acetonide is not recommended as an adjunct to vitrectomy surgery for intraocular trauma. Secondary outcome measures are suggestive of a negative effect of the adjunct, although the treatment group appeared to have more severe pathology on presentation. Future work: The use of alternative adjunctive medications in cases undergoing surgery for open globe trauma should be investigated. Refinement of clinical grading and case selection will enable better trail design for future studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN 30012492, EudraCT number 2014-002193-37, REC 14/LNO/1428, IRAS 156358, Local R&D registration CHAD 1031. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (12/35/64) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Despite advances in surgical techniques, eye trauma remains a leading cause of blindness and visual impairment. The main cause of trauma is a scarring process within the eye ­ proliferative vitreoretinopathy. There is good evidence from laboratory work and small-scale clinical studies that the addition of a steroid medication, triamcinolone acetonide, given in and around the eye at the time of surgery for eye trauma, can reduce the incidence of proliferative vitreoretinopathy scarring and improve the outcomes of surgery. The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma or ASCOT study was a multicentre clinical trial designed to test the use of triamcinolone acetonide as an addition to surgery to improve outcomes in eyes with 'open globe' penetrating injuries. A total of 280 patients were recruited and randomised to receive standard surgery or surgery with the additional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide). No benefit was found from the addition of the steroid medication. The addition of steroid medication was not good value for money. Secondary outcome measures suggested that triamcinolone acetonide may have had a negative effect on outcomes, although this may have been due to the presence of more severe cases amongst the patients allocated to receive the additional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide). The use of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide in eye trauma cases undergoing surgery is therefore not recommended. Future studies with different additional medications and/or more targeted case selection are indicated to improve outcomes for eyes experiencing penetrating trauma.

Prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: Economic evaluation of the novel butterfly device in a UK setting.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the cost-effectiveness of a novel PPH device as compared with usual care. DESIGN: A decision analytical model was used to explore the cost-effectiveness of the PPH Butterfly device compared with usual care. This was part of a United Kingdom, UK, clinical trial ISRCTN15452399 using a matched historical cohort who had standard PPH management without the use of the PPH Butterfly device. The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. SETTING: Liverpool Women's Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 57 women with 113 matched controls. INTERVENTION: The PPH Butterfly is a novel device that has been invented and developed in the UK to facilitate bimanual compression of the uterus in the treatment of PPH. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included healthcare costs, blood loss, and maternal morbidity events. RESULTS: Mean treatment costs in the Butterfly cohort were £3,459.66 as compared with standard care £3,223.93. Treatment with the Butterfly device resulted in decreased total blood loss in comparison with standard care. The Butterfly device had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,795.78 per PPH progression avoided (defined as ≤ 1000 ml additional blood loss from device insertion point). If the NHS is prepared to pay £8,500 per PPH progression avoided, then the Butterfly device is cost-effective with a probability of 87 percent. In the PPH Butterfly treatment arm there were 9% fewer cases of massive obstetric haemorrhage (severe PPH of more than 2000mls or more than 4 units of blood transfusion required) recorded as compared with the standard care historical cohort. As a low-cost device, the PPH Butterfly device is cost-effective but can be cost-saving to the NHS. CONCLUSION: The PPH pathway can result in high-cost resource use such as blood transfusion or high dependence unit hospital stays. The Butterfly device is a relative low-cost device in a UK NHS setting with a high probability of being cost-effective. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) can use this evidence in considering the adoption of innovative technologies such as the Butterfly device in the NHS. Extrapolation on an international scale to lower and middle-income countries could prevent mortality associated with PPH.

An Economic Evaluation Supported by Qualitative Data About the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) versus Standard Treatment Pathway in the Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The head and neck cancer (HNC) Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a condition-specific prompt list that allows patients to raise concerns to cancer consultants that otherwise might be overlooked. OBJECTIVE: This is the first economic evaluation of the PCI in patients with HNC investigating the costs and effects to the health service of not prioritising certain treatment pathways in addition to the primary cancer pathway. Additional costs can be accrued due to delayed referral to other appropriate services, e.g. hospital dentist. Economic evidence could influence future policy direction in this area globally. METHODS: Alongside a 3-year clustered randomised controlled trial, an economic evaluation was undertaken with Client Service Receipt Inventory data collected at three different time points (baseline and 6 and 12 months post-baseline). Patients were identified by a multidisciplinary team at the trial clinics. This economic analysis compared the PCI intervention versus the non-PCI treatment pathway. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the PCI versus non-PCI intervention treatment pathways. Qualitative data were also collected from seven consultants to triangulate findings from the economic evaluation. RESULTS: The analysis used data from 191 patients (66% of the full trial sample). The PCI inventory was low cost, at just over £13 per participant. The PCI intervention was cost effective and also cost saving, with an incremental cost difference of £295.91 over the 12-month follow-up period. The QALY values were higher in the PCI intervention strategy, with a value of 0.79, whereas the non-PCI group had a value of 0.76, thus the PCI intervention was dominant. The sensitivity analysis showed that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of being cost effective was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.83). Qualitative results showed that consultants using the PCI reported an enhanced awareness of patients' overall post-treatment needs. DISCUSSION: The PCI provided an effective means to conduct clinical consultations by avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs and focussing on aspects of care most important to patients. The cost per QALY gain was within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline threshold. The economic evaluation showed that the PCI intervention strategy was dominant and therefore cost saving to the national health service (NHS) and was more effective in terms of treatment. CONCLUSION: The PCI appears to be a low-cost intervention that generates a cost-effective benefit to patients from a NHS perspective if rolled out as part of routine care. Qualitative evidence has shown that the use of the PCI is supported by consultants in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT03086629.