Cost-effectiveness of Transforaminal epidural steroid injections for patients with ACUTE sciatica: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial. METHODS: Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

Effect of Transforaminal Epidural Corticosteroid Injections in Acute Sciatica: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TESIs) are widely administered for sciatica. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of TESIs in patients with acute sciatica (<8 wk). METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 Dutch hospitals. Participants (n=141) were randomly assigned to (1) usual care and TESI of 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone plus 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine (intervention 1); (2) usual care and transforaminal epidural injection with 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml NaCl 0.9% (intervention 2); (3) usual care consisting of oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy (control). Co-primary outcomes were back pain and leg pain intensity, physical functioning, and recovery measured during 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant mean differences in co-primary outcomes between groups during follow-up, except for leg pain when comparing intervention group 1 with control (-0.96 95%CI:-1.83 to -0.09). For secondary outcomes, some statistical significant between-group differences were found for treatment satisfaction and surgery, but only when comparing intervention group 2 to control. Post hoc analyses showed a statistically significant difference in response [50% improvement of leg pain (yes/no)] between intervention 1 and the control group at 3 months and that both intervention groups used less opioids. DISCUSSION: Except for a statistically significant effect of TESI on leg pain for patients with acute sciatica compared with usual care, there were no differences in co-primary outcomes. Nonetheless, transforaminal epidural injections seem to be associated with less opioid use, which warrants further exploration.

LOFIT (Lifestyle front Office For Integrating lifestyle medicine in the Treatment of patients): a novel care model towards community-based options for lifestyle change-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A healthy lifestyle is indispensable for the prevention of noncommunicable diseases. However, lifestyle medicine is hampered by time constraints and competing priorities of treating physicians. A dedicated lifestyle front office (LFO) in secondary/tertiary care may provide an important contribution to optimize patient-centred lifestyle care and connect to lifestyle initiatives from the community. The LOFIT study aims to gain insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of the LFO. METHODS: Two parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trials will be conducted for (cardio)vascular disorders (i.e. (at risk of) (cardio)vascular disease, diabetes) and musculoskeletal disorders (i.e. osteoarthritis, hip or knee prosthesis). Patients from three outpatient clinics in the Netherlands will be invited to participate in the study. Inclusion criteria are body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (kg/m2) and/or smoking. Participants will be randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a usual care control group. In total, we aim to include 552 patients, 276 in each trial divided over both treatment arms. Patients allocated to the intervention group will participate in a face-to-face motivational interviewing (MI) coaching session with a so-called lifestyle broker. The patient will be supported and guided towards suitable community-based lifestyle initiatives. A network communication platform will be used to communicate between the lifestyle broker, patient, referred community-based lifestyle initiative and/or other relevant stakeholders (e.g. general practitioner). The primary outcome measure is the adapted Fuster-BEWAT, a composite health risk and lifestyle score consisting of resting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, objectively measured physical activity and sitting time, BMI, fruit and vegetable consumption and smoking behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cardiometabolic markers, anthropometrics, health behaviours, psychological factors, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), cost-effectiveness measures and a mixed-method process evaluation. Data collection will be conducted at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study will gain insight into the (cost-)effectiveness of a novel care model in which patients under treatment in secondary or tertiary care are referred to community-based lifestyle initiatives to change their lifestyle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN13046877 . Registered 21 April 2022.

To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study.

PURPOSE: Inconsistent results have been found on the impact of using crosswalks versus EQ-5D value sets on reimbursement decisions. We sought to further investigate this issue in a simulation study. METHODS: Trial-based economic evaluation data were simulated for different conditions (depression, low back pain, osteoarthritis, cancer), severity levels (mild, moderate, severe), and effect sizes (small, medium, large). For all 36 scenarios, utilities were calculated using 3L and 5L value sets and crosswalks (3L to 5L and 5L to 3L crosswalks) for the Netherlands, the United States, and Japan. Utilities, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and probabilities of cost-effectiveness (pCE) obtained from values sets and crosswalks were compared. RESULTS: Differences between value sets and crosswalks ranged from -0.33 to 0.13 for utilities, from -0.18 to 0.13 for QALYs, and from -0.01 to 0.08 for incremental QALYs, resulting in different ICERs. For small effect sizes, at a willingness-to-pay of €20,000/QALY, the largest pCE difference was found for moderate cancer between the Japanese 5L value set and 5L to 3L crosswalk (difference = 0.63). For medium effect sizes, the largest difference was found for mild cancer between the Japanese 3L value set and 3L to 5L crosswalk (difference = 0.06). For large effect sizes, the largest difference was found for mild osteoarthritis between the Japanese 3L value set and 3L to 5L crosswalk (difference = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets can impact cost-utility outcomes to such an extent that this may influence reimbursement decisions.

Effects of a comprehensive lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular health: the TANSNIP-PESA trial.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness of a 3-year worksite lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular metrics and to study whether outcomes are influenced by baseline subclinical atherosclerosis (SA) by non-invasive imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: A randomized controlled trial was performed to compare a lifestyle intervention with standard of care in asymptomatic middle-aged subjects, stratified by SA. The intervention consisted of nine motivational interviews during the first year, followed by three further sessions between Years 1 and 3. The primary outcome was the change in a pre-specified adaptation of the Fuster-BEWAT score (Blood pressure, Exercise, Weight, Alimentation, and Tobacco) between baseline and follow-up Years 1-3. A total of 1020 participants (mean age 50 ± 4 years) were enrolled, of whom 510 were randomly assigned to the intervention and 510 to the control group. The baseline adapted Fuster-BEWAT score was 16.2 ± 3.7 points in the intervention group and 16.5 ± 3.5 points in the control group. At Year 1, the score improved significantly in intervention participants compared with controls [estimate 0.83 (95% CI 0.52-1.15) points]. However, intervention effectiveness decreased to non-significant levels at Year 3 [0.24 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.59) points]. Over the 3-year period, the intervention was effective in participants having low baseline SA [0.61 (95% CI 0.30-0.93) points] but not in those with high baseline SA [0.19 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.64) points]. CONCLUSION: In middle-aged asymptomatic adults, a lifestyle intervention was associated with a significant improvement in cardiovascular health and behavioural metrics. The effect attenuated after 1 year as the intensity of the intervention was reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02561065).

Cost-effectiveness of full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) compared with open microdiscectomy among patients with sciatica. METHODS: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design, in which patients were randomised to PTED or open microdiscectomy. Patients were aged from 18 to 70 years and had at least 6 weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. Effect measures included leg pain and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as derived using the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing data were multiply imputed, bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty, and various sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness. RESULTS: Of the 613 patients enrolled, 304 were randomised to PTED and 309 to open microdiscectomy. Statistically significant differences in leg pain and QALYs were found in favour of PTED at 12 months follow-up (leg pain: 6.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12.6; QALYs: 0.040; 95% CI 0.007 to 0.074). Surgery costs were higher for PTED than for open microdiscectomy (ie, €4500/patient vs €4095/patient). All other disaggregate costs as well as total societal costs were lower for PTED than for open microdiscectomy. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the probability of PTED being less costly and more effective (ie, dominant) compared with open microdiscectomy was 99.4% for leg pain and 99.2% for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that PTED is more cost-effective from the societal perspective compared with open microdiscectomy for patients with sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02602093.

Healthcare utilization and satisfaction with treatment before and after direct discharge from the Emergency Department of simple stable musculoskeletal injuries in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To evaluate healthcare utilization and satisfaction with treatment before and after implementing direct discharge (DD) from the Emergency Department (ED) of patients with simple, stable musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: Patients with simple, stable musculoskeletal injuries were included in two Dutch hospitals, both level-2 trauma centers: OLVG and Sint Antonius (SA), before (pre-DD-cohort) and after implementing DD (DD-cohort). With DD, no routine follow-up appointments are scheduled after the ED visit, supported by information leaflets, a smartphone application and a telephone helpline. Outcomes included: secondary healthcare utilization (follow-up appointments and X-ray/CT/MRI); satisfaction with treatment (scale 1-10); primary healthcare utilization (general practitioner (GP) or physiotherapist visited, yes/no). Linear regression was used to compare secondary healthcare utilization for all patients and per injury subgroup. Satisfaction and primary healthcare utilization were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 2033 (OLVG = 1686; SA = 347) and 1616 (OLVG = 1396; SA = 220) patients were included in the pre-DD-cohort and DD-cohort, respectively. After DD, the mean number of follow-up appointments per patient reduced by 1.06 (1.13-0.99; p < 0.001) in OLVG and 1.07 (1.02-0.93; p < 0.001) in SA. Follow-up appointments reduced significantly for all injury subgroups. Mean number of follow-up X-rays per patient reduced by 0.17 in OLVG (p < 0.001) and 0.18 in SA (p < 0.001). Numbers of CT/MRI scans were low and comparable. In OLVG, mean satisfaction with treatment was 8.1 (pre-DD-cohort) versus 7.95 (DD-cohort), versus 7.75 in SA (DD-cohort only). In OLVG, 23.6% of pre-DD-cohort patients visited their GP, versus 26.1% in the DD-cohort, versus 13.3% in SA (DD-cohort only). Physiotherapist use was comparable. CONCLUSION: This study performed in a large population and additional hospital confirms earlier pilot results, i.e., that DD has the potential to effectively reduce healthcare utilization, while maintaining high levels of satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Cost-effectiveness of direct discharge from the emergency department of patients with simple stable injuries in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of musculoskeletal injuries are simple stable injuries (SSIs). Direct discharge (DD) from the emergency department (ED) of patients with SSIs reduces healthcare utilization, without compromising patient outcome and experience, when compared with "traditional" care with routine follow-up. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of DD compared with traditional care from a societal perspective. METHODS: Societal costs, including healthcare, work absenteeism, and travel costs, were calculated for patients with an SSI, 6 months before (pre-DD cohort) and after implementation of DD (DD cohort). The pre-DD cohort was treated according to local protocols. The DD cohort was treated using orthoses, discharge leaflet, smartphone application, and telephone helpline, without scheduling routine follow-up. Effect measures included generic health-related quality of life (HR-QoL; EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire); disease-specific HR-QoL (functional outcome, different validated questionnaires, converted to 0-100 scale); treatment satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale (VAS), 1-10); and pain (VAS, 1-10). All data were assessed using a 3-month postinjury survey and electronic patient records. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: Before DD, 144 of 348 participants completed the survey versus 153 of 371 patients thereafter. There were no statistically significant differences between the pre-DD cohort and the DD cohort for generic HR-QoL (0.03; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.08), disease-specific HR-QoL (4.4; 95% CI -1.1 to 9.9), pain (0.08; 95% CI -0.37 to 0.52) and treatment satisfaction (-0.16; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.21). Total societal costs were lowest in the DD cohort (-€822; 95% CI -€1719 to -€67), including healthcare costs (-€168; 95% CI -€205 to -€131) and absenteeism costs (-€645; 95% CI -€1535 to €100). The probability of DD being cost-effective was 0.98 at a willingness-to-pay of €0 for all effect measures, remaining high with increasing willingness-to-pay for generic HR-QoL, disease-specific HR-QoL, and pain, and decreasing with increasing willingness-to-pay for treatment satisfaction. DISCUSSION: DD from the ED of patients with SSI seems cost-effective from a societal perspective. Future studies should test generalizability in other healthcare systems and strengthen findings in larger injury-specific cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Optimizing orthopedic trauma care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. A closed-loop audit of implementing a virtual fracture clinic and fast-track pathway in a Dutch level 2 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines concerning outpatient management of patients during the coronavirus pandemic required minimized face-to-face follow-up and increased remote care. In response, we established a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) review for emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal injuries, meaning patients are reviewed 'virtually' the next workday by a multidisciplinary team, instead of routine referral for face-to-face fracture clinic review. Patients wait at home and are contacted afterwards to discuss treatment. Based on VFC review, patients with minor injuries are discharged, while for other patients an extensive treatment plan is documented using injury-specific care pathways. Additionally, we established an ED orthopedic trauma fast-track to reduce waiting time. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which our workflow supported adherence to national coronavirus-related guidelines and effects on ED waiting time. METHODS: A closed-loop audit was performed during two 4-week periods using predefined standards: (1) all eligible ED orthopedic trauma patients are referred for VFC review; (2) reached afterwards; and follow-up is (3) patient initiated, or (4) performed remotely, whenever possible. Total ED waiting time, time to review, time for review, and time after review were assessed during both audit periods and compared with previous measurements. RESULTS: During both audits, the majority of eligible ED patients were referred for VFC review (1st: n=162 (88.0%); 2nd: n=302 (98.4%)), and reached afterwards (1st: 98.1%; 2nd: 99.0%). Of all referred patients, 17.9% and 13.6% were discharged 'virtually' during first and second audits, respectively, while 45.0% and 41.1% of scheduled follow-up appointments were remote. Median total ED waiting time was reduced (1st: -36 minutes (p<0.001); 2nd: -33 minutes (p<0.001)). During the second audit, median ED time to review was reduced by -13 minutes (p<0.001), as well as time for review: -10 minutes (p=0.019). DISCUSSION: In line with national guidelines, our VFC review allowed time-effective review and triage of the majority of ED orthopedic trauma patients, supporting patient-initiated and remote follow-up, whenever possible. ED waiting time was reduced after implementing the VFC review and orthopedic trauma fast-track. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Direct discharge from the emergency department of simple stable injuries: a propensity score-adjusted non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest a large proportion of musculoskeletal injuries are simple stable injuries (SSIs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether direct discharge (DD) from the emergency department (ED) of SSIs is non-inferior to 'traditional care' regarding treatment satisfaction and functional outcome, and to compare other patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), patient-reported experiences (PREMs), resource utilization, and adverse outcomes before and after DD. METHODS: This trial compared outcomes for 11 SSIs 6 months before and after the implementation of DD protocols. Pre-DD, patients were treated according to local protocols. Post-DD, patients were discharged directly using removable orthoses, discharge leaflets, smartphone application, and telephone helpline. Participants received a 3-month postinjury PROM/PREM survey to assess treatment satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), pain (VAS), functional outcome (four validated questionnaires), and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL; EuroQol-5D). Resource utilization included general practitioner (GP) visit (yes/no), physiotherapist visit (yes/no), return to work/school/sports (days), work/school absenteeism to visit hospital (yes/no), number of hospital visits, and follow-up X-rays. Other outcomes included missed injuries (additionally to SSI) and adverse outcomes (delayed union, non-union). Between-group differences were assessed using propensity score-adjusted regression analyses. Non-inferiority was assessed for satisfaction and functional outcome using predefined margins. RESULTS: 348 (pre-DD) and 371 (post-DD) patients participated; 144 (41.4%) and 153 (41.2%) patients completed the survey. Satisfaction and functional outcome post-DD were non-inferior to traditional care. Mean satisfaction was 8.13 pre-DD and 7.95 post-DD (mean difference: -0.16, p=0.408). Pain, HR-QoL, GP/physiotherapist visits, and return to work/school/sports were comparable before and after DD. Work absenteeism was higher pre-DD (OR 0.110, p<0.001), as well as school absenteeism (OR 0.084, p<0.001). Post-DD, the mean number of hospital visits and X-rays reduced: -1.68 (p<0.001) and -0.26 (p<0.001). Missed injuries occurred once pre-DD versus twice post-DD. There were no adverse outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this study confirm several SSIs can be discharged directly from the ED without compromising patient outcome/experience. Future injury-specific trials are needed to conclusively assess non-inferiority of DD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

STeroids Against Radiculopathy (STAR) trial: a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are used increasingly for patients with sciatica. However, their safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness are still a matter of debate. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methodology of the analysis for the STAR trial that assesses the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI during the acute stage of sciatica (< 8 weeks). METHODS: The STAR trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, prospective trial (RCT) investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI by making a three-group comparison among patients with acute sciatica due to a herniated lumbar disc (< 8 weeks): (1) TESI combined with levobupivacaine added to oral pain medication (intervention group 1) versus oral pain medication alone (control group), (2) intervention group 1 versus transforaminal epidural injection with levobupivacaine and saline solution added to oral pain medication (intervention group 2), and (3) intervention group 2 versus control group. Co-primary outcomes were physical functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (10-point numerical rating scale), and global perceived recovery (7-point Likert scale, dichotomized into 'recovered' and 'not recovered'). For all three comparisons, we defined the following minimal clinically relevant between-group differences: two points for pain intensity (range 0-10), four points for physical functioning (range 0-24) and a 20% difference in recovery rate. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and patient satisfaction (7-point Likert scale) and surgery rate. We also collected resource use data to perform an economic evaluation. Analyses will be conducted by intention-to-treat with p < 0.05 (two-tailed) for all three comparisons. Effects will be estimated using mixed models by maximum likelihood. For each comparison, mean differences, or difference in proportions, between groups will be tested per time point and an overall mean difference, or difference in proportions, between groups during the complete duration of follow-up (6 months) will be estimated. In the economic evaluation, Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations will be used to handle missing data. Cost and effect differences will be estimated using seemingly unrelated regression, and uncertainty will be estimated using bootstrapping techniques. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan provides detailed information on the intended analysis of the STAR trial, which aims to deliver evidence about the (cost-)effectiveness of TESI during the acute phase of sciatica (< 8 weeks). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch National trial register NTR4457 (6 March 2014).

Is reduction of routine radiograph use in patients with distal radius fractures cost effective? Analysis of data from the multicentre, randomised controlled WARRIOR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of a reduced imaging follow-up protocol of distal radius fractures compared with usual care. DESIGN: An economical evaluation conducted alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Four level-one trauma centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 341 patients participated (usual care (n=172), reduced imaging (n=169)). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to usual care (routine radiography at 1, 2, 6 and 12 weeks) or a reduced imaging strategy (radiographs at 6 and 12 weeks only for a clinical indication). OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional outcome was assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L). Costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires and medical records, and analysed from a societal perspective. Multiple imputation, seemingly unrelated regression analysis and bootstrapping were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Clinical overall outcomes of both groups were comparable. The difference in DASH was -2.03 (95% CI -4.83 to 0.77) and the difference in QALYs was 0.025 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.06). Patients in the reduced imaging group received on average 3.3 radiographs (SD: 1.9) compared with 4.2 (SD: 1.9) in the usual care group. Costs for radiographic imaging were significantly lower in the reduced imaging group than in the usual care group (€-48 per patient, 95% CI -68 to -27). There was no difference in total costs between groups (€-401 per patient, 95% CI -2453 to 1251). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for QALYs was -15 872; the ICER for the DASH was 198. The probability of reduced imaging being cost effective compared with usual care ranged from 0.8 to 0.9 at a willingness to pay of €20 000/QALY to €80 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a reduced imaging strategy in the follow-up of distal radius fractures has a high probability of being cost effective for QALYs, without decreasing functional outcome. We, therefore, recommend imaging only when clinically indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands trial register (NL4477).

How do the costs of physical therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compare? A trial-based economic evaluation of two treatments in patients with meniscal tears alongside the ESCAPE study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether physical therapy (PT) is cost-effective compared with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients with a non-obstructive meniscal tear, we performed a full trial-based economic evaluation from a societal perspective. In a secondary analysis-this paper-we examined whether PT is non-inferior to APM. METHODS: We recruited patients aged 45-70 years with a non-obstructive meniscal tear in nine Dutch hospitals. Resource use was measured using web-based questionnaires. Measures of effectiveness included knee function using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Follow-up was 24 months. Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping techniques. The non-inferiority margins for societal costs, the IKDC and QALYs, were €670, 8 points and 0.057 points, respectively. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 321 patients to PT (n=162) or APM (n=159). PT was associated with significantly lower costs after 24 months compared with APM (-€1803; 95% CI -€3008 to -€838). The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was 1.00 at a willingness to pay of €0/unit of effect for the IKDC (knee function) and QALYs (quality of life) and decreased with increasing values of willingness to pay. The probability that PT is non-inferior to APM was 0.97 for all non-inferiority margins for the IKDC and 0.89 for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of PT being cost-effective compared with APM was relatively high at reasonable values of willingness to pay for the IKDC and QALYs. Also, PT had a relatively high probability of being non-inferior to APM for both outcomes. This warrants further deimplementation of APM in patients with non-obstructive meniscal tears. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01850719 and NTR3908.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy (Mechanical Diagnosis and Treatment and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections) among patients with an indication for a Lumbar Herniated Disc surgery: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The general consensus is that surgical treatment is advised when conservative methods fail in patients with lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS). Preliminary evidence from our pilot study indicates that combination therapy (mechanical diagnosis therapy and transforaminal epidural injections) can prevent surgical treatment in patients on the waiting list for surgery. The pilot study lacked a control group, and therefore, firm conclusions pertaining to effects could not be made. This study aims to determine if combination therapy, performed while being on the waiting list for lumbar herniated disc surgery, is effective and cost-effective compared with usual care (i.e., no intervention while being on the waiting list) among patients with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed indication for a lumbar herniated disc surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted with an economic evaluation. Patients aged 18 and above with incapacitating LRS, with leg pain and an MRI confirmed indication for lumbar disc hernia surgery, will be recruited from seven Dutch hospitals. While being on the waiting list for lumbar herniated disc surgery, patients will be randomized to either the combination therapy or usual care group. The primary outcome measure is the number of patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery during 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include back and leg pain intensity (numeric pain rating scale), physical functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaires-23), self-perceived recovery (global perceived effect), and health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five Dimensions Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12)). For the economic evaluation, societal and health care costs will be measured. Measurements moments are baseline, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 months. Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. CONCLUSION: No randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy compared with usual care in patients with an indication for lumbar herniated disc surgery, which emphasizes the importance of this study.

Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an 18-week supervised exercise program in patients treated with autologous stem cell transplantation: results from the EXIST study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a supervised 18-week high-intensity exercise program compared with usual care in patients treated with autologous stem cell transplantation. METHODS: One hundred nine patients were randomly assigned to the exercise intervention (n = 54) or the usual care control group (n = 55). Data on cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2peak), handgrip strength, general fatigue, and health-related quality of life (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) were collected at baseline (T0), after completion of the exercise intervention or at a similar time point in the control group (T1) and 12 months later (T2). Cost questionnaires were used to assess societal costs. Long-term effectiveness (at T2) was evaluated using linear mixed model analyses. For the economic evaluation, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and data were analyzed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: At T2, no statistically significant differences were found between the intervention and control group for VO2peak (0.12; 95%CI - 1.89; 2.14 ml/min/kg), handgrip strength (- 1.08; 95%CI- 2.47; 2.31), and general fatigue (- 0.69; 95%CI - 2.52; 1.14). During 12-months follow-up, no significant between-group differences in QALYs and societal costs were found (QALYs - 0.07; 95%CI - 0.17; 0.04; costs 529; 95%CI - 3205;4452). Intervention costs were €1340 per patient. For all outcomes, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was low at reasonable values of willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence for the exercise intervention being effective on physical fitness and fatigue, nor cost-effective from a societal perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered on 27 May 2010 at the Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR2341 ). IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The current exercise intervention should not be recommended to patients recently treated with autologous stem cell transplantation.

Can patient-reported profiles avoid unnecessary referral to a spine surgeon? An observational study to further develop the Nijmegen Decision Tool for Chronic Low Back Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) is a heterogeneous condition with lack of diagnostic clarity. Therapeutic interventions show small effects. To improve outcomes by targeting interventions it is recommended to develop a triage system to surgical and non-surgical treatments based on treatment outcomes. The objective of the current study was to develop and internally validate prognostic models based on pre-treatment patient-reported profiles that identify patients who either respond or do not respond to two frequently performed treatments (lumbar spine surgery and multidisciplinary pain management program). METHODS: A consecutive cohort study in a secondary referral spine center was performed. The study followed the recommendations of the PROGRESS framework and was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR5946). Data of forty-seven potential pre-consultation (baseline) indicators predicting 'response' or 'non-response' at one-year follow-up for the two treatments were obtained to develop and validate four multivariable logistic regression models. The source population consisted of 3,410 referred CLBP-patients. Two treatment cohorts were defined: elective 'spine surgery' (n = 217 [6.4%]) and multidisciplinary bio-psychosocial 'pain management program' (n = 171 [5.0%]). Main inclusion criteria were age ≥18, CLBP (≥6 months), and not responding to primary care treatment. The primary outcome was functional ability: 'response' (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≤22) and 'non-response' (ODI ≥41). RESULTS: Baseline indicators predictive of treatment outcome were: degree of disability (all models), ≥2 previous spine surgeries, psychosocial complaints, age (onset <20 or >50), and patient expectations of treatment outcomes. The explained variances were low for the models predicting response and non-response to pain management program (R2 respectively 23% and 26%) and modest for surgery (R2 30% and 39%). The overall performance was acceptable (c-index; 0.72-0.83), the model predicting non-response to surgery performed best (R2 = 39%; c-index = 0.83). CONCLUSION: This study was the first to identify different patient-reported profiles that predict response to different treatments for CLBP. The model predicting 'non-response' to elective lumbar spine surgery performed remarkably well, suggesting that referrals of these patients to a spine surgeon could be avoided. After external validation, the patient-reported profiles could potentially enhance timely patient triage to the right secondary care specialist and improve decision-making between clinican and patient. This could lead to improved treatment outcomes, which results in a more efficient use of healthcare resources.

Personalised perioperative care by e-health after intermediate-grade abdominal surgery: a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Instructing and guiding patients after surgery is essential for successful recovery. However, the time that health-care professionals can spend with their patients postoperatively has been reduced because of efficiency-driven, shortened hospital stays. We evaluated the effect of a personalised e-health-care programme on return to normal activities after surgery. METHODS: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial was done at seven teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18-75 years who were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia surgery, or laparoscopic adnexal surgery for a benign indication were recruited. An independent researcher randomly allocated participants to either the intervention or control group using computer-based randomisation lists, with stratification by sex, type of surgery, and hospital. Participants in the intervention group had access to a perioperative, personalised, e-health-care programme, which managed recovery expectations and provided postoperative guidance tailored to the patient. The control group received usual care and access to a placebo website containing standard general recovery advice. Participants were unaware of the study hypothesis and were asked to complete questionnaires at five timepoints during the 6-month period after surgery. The primary outcome was time between surgery and return to normal activities, measured using personalised patient-reported outcome measures. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4699. FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2015, and Aug 12, 2016, 344 participants were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the intervention (n=173) or control (n=171) group. 14 participants (4%) were lost to follow-up, with 330 participants included in the primary outcome analysis. Median time until return to normal activities was 21 days (95% CI 17-25) in the intervention group and 26 days (20-32) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·38, 95% CI 1·09-1·73; p=0·007). Complications did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: A personalised e-health intervention after abdominal surgery speeds up the return to normal activities compared with usual care. Implementation of this e-health programme is recommended in patients undergoing intermediate-grade abdominal, gynaecological, or general surgical procedures. FUNDING: ZonMw.

Cost-effectiveness of healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: economic evaluation alongside the DALI study, a European multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with perinatal health risks to both mother and offspring, and represents a large economic burden. The DALI study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, undertaken to add to the knowledge base on the effectiveness of interventions for pregnant women at increased risk for GDM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion intervention compared to usual care among pregnant women at increased risk of GDM from a societal perspective. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a European multicenter-randomized controlled trial. A total of 435 pregnant women at increased risk of GDM in primary and secondary care settings in nine European countries, were recruited and randomly allocated to a healthy eating and physical activity promotion intervention (HE + PA intervention), a healthy eating promotion intervention (HE intervention), or a physical activity promotion intervention (PA intervention). Main outcome measures were gestational weight gain, fasting glucose, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and societal costs. RESULTS: Between-group total cost and effect differences were not significant, besides significantly less gestational weight gain in the HE + PA group compared with the usual care group at 35-37 weeks (-2.3;95%CI:-3.7;-0.9). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the HE + PA intervention was the preferred intervention strategy. At 35-37 weeks, it depends on the decision-makers' willingness to pay per kilogram reduction in gestational weight gain whether the HE + PA intervention is cost-effective for gestational weight gain, whereas it was not cost-effective for fasting glucose and HOMA-IR. After delivery, the HE + PA intervention was cost-effective for QALYs, which was predominantly caused by a large reduction in delivery-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy eating and physical activity promotion was found to be the preferred strategy for limiting gestational weight gain. As this intervention was cost-effective for QALYs after delivery, this study lends support for broad implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN70595832 . Registered 2 December 2011.

Cost-effectiveness of an internet-based perioperative care programme to enhance postoperative recovery in gynaecological patients: economic evaluation alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an internet-based perioperative care programme compared with usual care for gynaecological patients. DESIGN: Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. SETTING: Secondary care, nine hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-2014. PARTICIPANTS: 433 employed women aged 18-65 years scheduled for a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery. INTERVENTION: The intervention comprised an internet-based care programme aimed at improving convalescence and preventing delayed return to work (RTW) following gynaecological surgery and was sequentially rolled out. Depending on the implementation phase of their hospital, patients were allocated to usual care (n=206) or to the intervention (n=227). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was duration until full sustainable RTW. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related quality of life and recovery. RESULTS: At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences in total societal costs (€-647; 95% CI €-2116 to €753) and duration until RTW (-4.1; 95% CI -10.8 to 2.6) between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RTW was 56; each day earlier RTW in the intervention group was associated with cost savings of €56 compared with usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.79 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0 per day earlier RTW, which increased to 0.97 at a WTP of €76 per day earlier RTW. The difference in QALYs gained over 12 months between the groups was clinically irrelevant resulting in a low probability of cost-effectiveness for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that on average the costs of a day of sickness absence are €230, the care programme is considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care for duration until sustainable RTW after gynaecological surgery for benign disease. Future research should indicate whether widespread implementation of this care programme has the potential to reduce societal costs associated with gynaecological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2933; Results.

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of physical exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program (Onco-Move) and a supervised, moderate-to-high intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program (OnTrack) have proven to be effective in maintaining physical fitness and reducing fatigue among breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. This study evaluated the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of Onco-Move and OnTrack. METHODS: A total of 230 patients were randomized to Onco-Move, OnTrack, or usual care (UC). Health outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), general and physical fatigue, and physical fitness measured at baseline, end of chemotherapy, and 6-month follow-up. Societal costs included professional and informal health care, work absenteeism, and unpaid productivity costs. Cost data were based on 3-monthly questionnaires, supplemented by medication data obtained from pharmacies. RESULTS: Onco-Move is not likely to be cost-effective due to the relatively high willingness-to-pay necessary to reach reasonable probabilities of cost-effectiveness (QALY, general and physical fatigue). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for OnTrack compared to UC were €26,916/QALY, €788/1-point decrease in general fatigue and €1402/1-point decrease in physical fatigue. The probability of OnTrack being cost-effective ranged from 31% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0-79% at a WTP of €80,000/QALY, 97% at a WTP of €15,000/1-point decrease in general fatigue, and 86% at a WTP of €24,000/1-point decrease in physical fatigue. Both interventions had a low probability of being cost-effective for physical fitness. The probability of cost-effectiveness for both interventions was greater among compliant participants. CONCLUSIONS: Onco-Move is not likely to be cost-effective. Depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay, OnTrack could be considered cost-effective in comparison with UC. Trial registration Clinical trial registration number of the Netherlands Trial Register-NTR2159.