Economic Evaluation of Complete Revascularization for Patients with Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of complete revascularization at index admission compared with infarct-related artery (IRA) treatment only, in patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: An economic evaluation of a multicenter randomized trial was conducted, comparing complete revascularization at index admission to IRA-only P-PCI in patients with multivessel disease (12-month follow-up). Overall hospital costs (costs for P-PCI procedure(s), hospital length of stay, and any subsequent re-admissions) were estimated. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Multiple imputation was undertaken. The mean incremental cost and effect, with associated 95% confidence intervals, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated. RESULTS: On the basis of 296 patients, the mean incremental overall hospital cost for complete revascularization was estimated to be -£215.96 (-£1390.20 to £958.29), compared with IRA-only, with a per-patient mean reduction in MACEs of 0.170 (0.044 to 0.296) and a QALY gain of 0.011 (-0.019 to 0.041). According to the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, the probability of complete revascularization being cost-effective was estimated to be 72.0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold value of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Complete revascularization at index admission was estimated to be more effective (in terms of MACEs and QALYs) and cost-effective (overall costs were estimated to be lower and complete revascularization thereby dominated IRA-only). There was, however, some uncertainty associated with this decision.

An Occupational Therapy intervention for residents with stroke-related disabilities in UK Care Homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Care home residents with stroke-related disabilities have significant activity limitations. Phase II trial results suggested a potential benefit of occupational therapy (OT) in maintaining residents' capacity to engage in functional activity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a targeted course of OT in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity for UK care home residents living with stroke-related disabilities. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Cluster randomisation occurred at the care-home level. Homes were stratified according to trial administrative centre and type of care provided (nursing or residential), and they were randomised 1 : 1 to either the intervention or the control arm. SETTING: The setting was 228 care homes which were local to 11 trial administrative centres across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including residents with communication and cognitive impairments, not receiving end-of-life care. INTERVENTION: Personalised 3-month course of OT delivered by qualified therapists. Care workers participated in training workshops to support personal activities of daily living. The control condition consisted of usual care for residents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome data were collected by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome at the participant level was the Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (BI) score at 3 months. The secondary outcomes included BI scores at 6 and 12 months post randomisation, and the Rivermead Mobility Index, Geriatric Depression Scale-15 and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three levels, questionnaire scores at all time points. Economic evaluation examined the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. RESULTS: Overall, 568 residents from 114 care homes were allocated to the intervention arm and 474 residents from another 114 care homes were allocated to the control arm, giving a total of 1042 participants. Randomisation occurred between May 2010 and March 2012. The mean age of participants was 82.9 years, and 665 (64%) were female. No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. Of the 1042 participants, 870 (83%) were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (intervention, n = 479; control, n = 391). The primary outcome showed no significant differences between groups. The adjusted mean difference in the BI score between groups was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.33 to 0.70, p = 0.48; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient 0.09]. Secondary outcome measures showed no significant differences at all time points. Mean incremental cost of the Occupational Therapy intervention for residents with stroke living in UK Care Homes intervention was £438.78 (95% CI -£3360.89 to £1238.46) and the incremental QALY gain was 0.009 (95% CI -0.030 to 0.048). LIMITATIONS: A large proportion of participants with very severe activity-based limitations and cognitive impairment may have limited capacity to engage in therapy. CONCLUSION: A 3-month individualised course of OT showed no benefit in maintaining functional activity in an older care home population with stroke-related disabilities. FUTURE WORK: There is an urgent need to reduce health-related complications caused by inactivity and to provide an enabling built environment within care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00757750. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 15. See the Health Technology Assessment programme website for further project information.

Self-help educational booklets for the prevention of smoking relapse following smoking cessation treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Most people who quit smoking for a short term will return to smoking again in 12 months. We tested whether self-help booklets can reduce relapse in short-term quitters after receiving behavioural and pharmacological cessation treatment. DESIGN: A parallel-arm, pragmatic individually randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Smoking cessation clinics in England. Participants People who stopped smoking for 4 weeks after receiving cessation treatment in stop smoking clinics. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group (n=703) were mailed eight booklets, each of which taught readers how to resist urges to smoke. Participants in the control group (n=704) received a leaflet currently used in practice. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was prolonged, carbon monoxide-verified abstinence from months 4 to 12. The secondary outcomes included 7-day self-reported abstinence at 3 and 12 months. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate treatment effects and to investigate possible effect modifying variables. FINDINGS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in prolonged abstinence from months 4 to 12 (36.9% versus 38.6%; odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.75-1.16; P=0.524). In addition, there were no significant differences between the groups in any secondary outcomes. However, people who reported knowing risky situations for relapse and using strategies to handle urges to smoke were less likely to relapse. CONCLUSIONS: In people who stop smoking successfully with behavioural support, a comprehensive self-help educational programme to teach people skills to identify and respond to high-risk situations for return to smoking did not reduce relapse.

Effectiveness and economic evaluation of self-help educational materials for the prevention of smoking relapse: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people who quit smoking successfully for a short period will return to smoking again in 12 months. A previous exploratory meta-analysis indicated that self-help booklets may be effective for smoking relapse prevention in unaided quitters. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a set of self-help educational booklets to prevent smoking relapse in people who had stopped smoking with the aid of behavioural support. DESIGN: This is an open, randomised controlled trial and qualitative process evaluation. Trial participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups, using a simple randomisation process without attempts to stratify by participant characteristics. The participant allocation was 'concealed' because the recruitment of quitters occurred before the random allocation. SETTING: Short-term quitters were recruited from NHS Stop Smoking Clinics, and self-help educational materials were posted to study participants at home. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1407 carbon monoxide (CO)-validated quitters at 4 weeks after quit date in NHS Stop Smoking Clinics. The trial excluded pregnant women and quitters who were not able to read the educational materials in English. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the experimental group (n = 703) received a set of eight revised Forever Free booklets, and participants in the control group (n = 704) received a single leaflet that is currently given to NHS patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted 3 and 12 months after quit date. The primary outcome was prolonged, CO-verified abstinence from months 4 to 12 during which time no more than five cigarettes were smoked. The secondary outcomes included self-reported abstinence during the previous 7 days at 3 and 12 months, CO-verified abstinence at 12 months, costs (NHS and NHS and participant medication costs perspectives) and quality-adjusted life-years. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate effect-modifying variables. A simultaneous qualitative process evaluation was conducted to help interpret the trial results. RESULTS: Data from 1404 participants were used for the final analysis, after excluding three participants who died before the 12-month follow-up. The proportion with prolonged abstinence from months 4 to 12 after quit date was 36.9% in the intervention group and 38.6% in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.15; p = 0.509). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in secondary smoking outcomes. People who reported knowing risky situations for relapse and using strategies to handle urges to smoke were less likely to relapse. However, there were no differences between the groups in the proportion of participants who reported that they knew any more about coping skills, and no differences in reported use of strategies to cope with urges to smoke between the trial groups. The qualitative study found that some quitters considered self-help booklets unhelpful for smoking relapse prevention, although positive feedback by participants was common. CONCLUSIONS: Among quitters who had stopped smoking with the aid of intensive behavioural support, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of smoking relapse between those who subsequently received a set of eight revised Forever Free booklets and those who received a single leaflet. Although many people had suboptimal strategies to prevent relapse and most relapsed, the Forever Free booklets proved an ineffective medium for teaching them the skills to prevent relapse. Further research should focus on interventions that may increase the use of coping skills when required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36980856.

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND: One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING: Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION: Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS: A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS: The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led versus doctor-led antiretroviral treatment in South Africa: pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led versus doctor-led antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV-infected people. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in 31 primary care clinics (16 intervention, 15 controls) in Free State Province, South Africa. Participants were HIV-infected patients, aged ≥16 years. Cohort 1 (CD4 count ≤350 cells/µl, not yet receiving ART at enrolment): consisted of 5 390 intervention patients and 3 862 controls; Cohort 2 (already received ART for ≥6 months at enrolment) of 3 029 intervention patients and 3 202 controls. Nurses were authorised and trained to initiate and represcribe ART. Management and ART provision were decentralised to primary care clinics. In control clinics, doctors initiated and re-prescribed ART, nurses monitored ART. Main outcome measure(s) were health service costs, death (cohort 1) and undetectable viral load (<400 copies/ml) (cohort 2) during the 12 months after enrolment. RESULTS: For Cohort 1, the intervention had an estimated incremental cost of US$102.52, an incremental effect of 0.42% fewer deaths and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$24 500 per death averted. For Cohort 2, the intervention had an estimated incremental cost of US$59.48, an incremental effect of 0.47% more undetectable viral loads and an ICER of US$12 584 per undetectable viral load. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led ART was associated with higher mean health service costs than doctor-led care, with small effects on primary outcomes, and a high associated level of uncertainty. Given this, and the shortage of doctors, further implementation of nurse-led ART should be considered, although this may increase health service costs.

The FeSTivaLS trial protocol: a randomized evaluation of the efficacy of functional strength training on enhancing walking and upper limb function later post stroke.

RATIONALE: Functional Strength Training may enhance motor function of people who are more than six months post stroke. AIMS: to evaluate the clinical efficacy of enhancing upper and lower limb motor function with FST to explore participants' views (expectations and experiences) of FST, and to determine what cost-effectiveness data to collect in a subsequent Phase III trial. DESIGN: Randomized, observer-blind trial with embedded qualitative investigation of participants' views of FST (n = 6, purposive sampling). STUDY: Participants (n = 58), six months to five years after stroke with difficulty using their paretic upper (UL) and lower limbs (LL) for everyday functional activity. All will be randomized to either FST-UL or FST-LL delivered in their own homes for four days each week for six weeks. FST involves repetitive progressive resisted exercise during goal directed functional activities. The therapist's main input is to provide verbal prompting and feedback. OUTCOMES: Measures will be undertaken before randomization (baseline), after the six-week intervention (outcome) and six weeks thereafter (follow-up). Primary outcomes for clinical efficacy will be the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC) and the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Clinical efficacy analysis will use the proportional odds model for FAC and a Mann-Whitney test for ARAT. Participants' views of FST will be explored at baseline and outcome through audiotaped, semi-structured, narrative approach, interviews. The analytic process for interviews will sort transcribed data thematically and seek categories to inform conceptualization (theory-building). A purpose-designed cost questionnaire will identify what cost resource items are likely to be affected by FST.

The at-risk registers in severe asthma (ARRISA) study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial examining effectiveness and costs in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients at risk of severe exacerbations contribute disproportionally to asthma mortality, morbidity and costs. We evaluated the effectiveness and costs of using 'asthma risk registers' for these patients in primary care. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised trial, 29 primary care practices identified 911 at-risk asthma patients using British asthma guideline criteria (severe asthma plus adverse psychosocial characteristics). Intervention practices added electronic alerts to identified patients' records to flag their at-risk status and received practice-based training about using the alerts to improve patient access and opportunistic management. Control practices continued routine care. Numbers of patients experiencing the primary outcome of a moderate-severe exacerbation (resulting in death, hospitalisation, accident and emergency attendance, out-of-hours contact, or a course/boost in oral prednisolone for asthma), other healthcare and medication usage, and costs over 1 year were derived from practice-based records. RESULTS: There was no significant effect on exacerbations (control: 46.5%; intervention: 53.6%, OR, 95% CI 1.30, 0.93 to 1.80). However, this composite outcome masked relative reductions in intervention patients experiencing hospitalisations (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94), accident and emergency (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.31) and out-of-hours contacts (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.37); and a relative increase in prednisolone prescription for exacerbations (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85). Furthermore, prescription of nebulised short-acting ß-agonists reduced and long-acting ß-agonists increased for intervention relative to control patients. The adjusted mean per patient healthcare cost was £138.21 lower (p=0.837) among intervention practices. CONCLUSION: Using asthma risk registers in primary care did not reduce treated exacerbations, but reduced hospitalisations and increased prescriptions of recommended preventative therapies without increasing costs.

Self-help materials for the prevention of smoking relapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people who stop smoking successfully for a few weeks will return to smoking again in the medium term. There are few effective interventions to prevent this relapse and none used routinely in clinical practice. A previous exploratory meta-analysis suggested that self-help booklets may be effective but requires confirmation. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a set of self-help educational materials to prevent smoking relapse in the National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an open, randomized controlled trial. The target population is carbon monoxide (CO) verified quitters at four weeks in the NHS stop smoking clinic (total sample size N = 1,400). The experimental intervention tested is a set of eight revised Forever Free booklets, including an introduction booklet and more extensive information on all important issues for relapse prevention. The control intervention is a leaflet that has no evidence to suggest it is effective but is currently given to some patients using NHS stop smoking services. Two follow-up telephone interviews will be conducted at three and 12 months after the quit date. The primary outcome will be prolonged abstinence from months four to 12 with no more than five lapses, confirmed by a CO test at the 12-month assessment. The secondary outcomes will be seven-day self-report point prevalence abstinence at three months and seven-day biochemically confirmed point prevalence abstinence at 12 months. To assess cost-effectiveness, costs will be estimated from a health service perspective and the EQ-5D will be used to estimate the QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) gain associated with each intervention. The comparison of smoking abstinence rates (and any other binary outcomes) between the two trial arms will be carried out using odds ratio as the outcome statistic and other related statistical tests. Exploratory subgroup analyses, including logistic regression analyses with interaction terms, will be conducted to investigate possible effect-modifying variables. DISCUSSION: The possible effect of self-help educational materials for the prevention of smoking relapse has important public health implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36980856.

Increasing heart-health lifestyles in deprived communities: economic evaluation of lay health trainers.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) often arises from modifiable lifestyle factors. Health care professionals may lack the skills and resources to sustain behaviour change, lay 'health trainers' (LHT) offer a potential alternative. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of using a LHT to improve heart-health lifestyles in deprived communities. METHODS: Participants in this randomized trial were aged ≥18 years with at least one risk factor for CVD (hypertension, raised cholesterol, diabetes, BMI>30 or current smoker). Both groups received health promotion literature. LHT were also able to provide intervention participants with information, advice and support aimed at changing beliefs and behaviour. Costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) changes were estimated over 6 months. The cost-utility [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)] of LHT was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000-30 000 per QALY. The probability of LHT being cost-effective was also calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants were randomized to a LHT, with 38 controls. The mean cost of the LHT intervention was £151. On average, other health and social service costs fell by £21 for controls and £75 for intervention participants giving a LHT mean overall incremental cost of £98. The mean QALY gains were 0.022 and 0.028, respectively. The ICER for LHT was £14 480, yet there was a 61% chance of making the wrong decision at a £20 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: LHT provision was estimated to be cost-effective for people at risk of CVD. However, a large level of uncertainty was associated with that decision.

Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention in preventing Type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research has suggested people with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) are less likely to develop Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) if they receive prolonged structured diet and exercise advice. This study examined the within-trial cost-effectiveness of such lifestyle interventions. METHODS: Screen-detected participants with either newly diagnosed T2DM or IFG were randomized 2:1 to intervention versus control (usual care) between February and December 2009, in Norfolk (UK). The intervention consisted of group based education, physiotherapy and peer support sessions, plus telephone contacts from T2DM volunteers. We monitored healthcare resource use, intervention costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (incremental cost effectiveness ratio [ICER]), and cost effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were estimated. RESULTS: In total, 177 participants were recruited (118 intervention, 59 controls), with a mean follow-up of 7 months. Excluding screening and recruitment costs, the mean cost was estimated to be £551 per participant in the intervention arm, compared with £325 in the control arm. The QALY gains were -0.001 and -0.004, respectively. The intervention was estimated to have an ICER of £67,184 per QALY (16 percent probability of being cost-effective at the £20,000/QALY threshold). Cost-effectiveness estimates were more favorable for IFG participants and those with longer follow-up (≥ 4 months) (ICERs of £20,620 and £17,075 per QALY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Group sessions to prevent T2DM were not estimated to be within current limits of cost-effectiveness. However, there was a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these estimates, suggesting the need for further research.

The serious mental illness health improvement profile [HIP]: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The serious mental illness Health Improvement Profile [HIP] is a brief pragmatic tool, which enables mental health nurses to work together with patients to screen physical health and take evidence-based action when variables are identified to be at risk. Piloting has demonstrated clinical utility and acceptability. METHODS/DESIGN: A single blind parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial with secondary economic analysis and process observation. Unit of randomisation: mental health nurses [MHNs] working in adult community mental health teams across two NHS Trusts. SUBJECTS: Patients over 18 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorder on the caseload of participating MHNs. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of the HIP programme on patients' physical wellbeing assessed by the physical component score of the Medical Outcome Study (MOS) 36 Item Short Form Health Survey version 2 [SF-36v2]. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the HIP programme on: cost effectiveness, mental wellbeing, cardiovascular risk, physical health care attitudes and knowledge of MHNs and to determine the acceptability of the HIP Programme in the NHS. Consented nurses (and patients) will be randomised to receive the HIP Programme or treatment as usual. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and 12 months with a process observation after 12 months to include evaluation of patients' and professionals' experience and observation of any effect on care plans and primary-secondary care interface communication. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial and process observation will provide information about the effectiveness of the HIP Programme in supporting MHNs to address physical comorbidity in serious mental illness. Given the current unacceptable prevalence of physical comorbidity and mortality in the serious mental illness population, it is hoped the HIP trial will provide a timely contribution to evidence on organisation and delivery of care for patients, clinicians and policy makers. ISRCTN: ISRCTN41137900.

Evaluation of stroke services in Anglia Stroke Clinical Network to examine the variation in acute services and stroke outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the third leading cause of death in developed countries and the leading cause of long-term disability worldwide. A series of national stroke audits in the UK highlighted the differences in stroke care between hospitals. The study aims to describe variation in outcomes following stroke and to identify the characteristics of services that are associated with better outcomes, after accounting for case mix differences and individual prognostic factors. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cohort study in eight acute NHS trusts within East of England, with at least one year of follow-up after stroke. The study population will be a systematically selected representative sample of patients admitted with stroke during the study period, recruited within each hospital. We will collect individual patient data on prognostic characteristics, health care received, outcomes and costs of care and we will also record relevant characteristics of each provider organisation. The determinants of one year outcome including patient reported outcome will be assessed statistically with proportional hazards regression models. Self (or proxy) completed EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaires will measure quality of life at baseline and follow-up for cost utility analyses. DISCUSSION: This study will provide observational data about health service factors associated with variations in patient outcomes and health care costs following hospital admission for acute stroke. This will form the basis for future RCTs by identifying promising health service interventions, assessing the feasibility of recruiting and following up trial patients, and provide evidence about frequency and variances in outcomes, and intra-cluster correlation of outcomes, for sample size calculations. The results will inform clinicians, public, service providers, commissioners and policy makers to drive further improvement in health services which will bring direct benefit to the patients.

Lifestyle interventions for knee pain in overweight and obese adults aged > or = 45: economic evaluation of randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of four different lifestyle interventions for knee pain. DESIGN: Cost utility analysis of randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 389 adults aged > or = 45 with self reported knee pain and body mass index (BMI) > or = 28. INTERVENTIONS: Dietary intervention plus quadriceps strengthening exercises, dietary intervention, quadriceps strengthening exercises, and leaflet provision. Participants received home visits over a two year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained over two years from a health service perspective. RESULTS: Advice leaflet was associated with a mean change in cost of -31 pounds sterling, and a mean QALY gain of 0.085. Both strengthening exercises and dietary intervention were more effective (0.090 and 0.133 mean QALY gain, respectively) but were not cost effective. Dietary intervention plus strengthening exercises had a mean cost of 647 pounds sterling and a mean QALY gain of 0.147 and was estimated to have an incremental cost of 10,469 pounds sterling per QALY gain (relative to leaflet provision), and a 23.1% probability of being cost effective at a 20,000 pounds sterling/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Dietary intervention plus strengthening exercises was estimated to be cost effective for individuals with knee pain, but with a large level of uncertainty. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN93206785.

Measuring the benefits of treatment for psychosis: validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended that cost-effectiveness analysis includes the EQ-5D; however, this is often not implemented in the area of mental health. AIMS: To assess the appropriateness of using the EQ-5D to measure improvements in mental health. METHOD: Seventy-seven participants with psychosis were rated according to the EQ-5D and seven measures of mental health at both pre- and post-intervention. To assess construct validity we compared the (pre-intervention) mean EQ-5D scores for those with milder and more severe scores, according to each of the seven measures. To assess responsiveness we estimated the mean EQ-5D change score for those who improved (post-intervention), according to each of the measures. RESULTS: The mean EQ-5D score was more favourable for both those with milder scores (mean difference: 0.044 to 0.301) and for those who improved post-intervention (mean change: 0.029 to 0.117). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests the EQ-5D should be considered for use in future cost-effectiveness studies in the area of mental health.

Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter?

BACKGROUND: A number of different measures can be used within cost-utility analyses, we compared results according to both the EQ-5D and SF-6D. METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted to compare 4 options for people with knee pain. Over the 2 year trial period, the change in cost to health-service was estimated, and both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were used to estimate the change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using a complete case analysis, the cost-utility (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) of each option, according to both the EQ-5D and SF-6D, was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of pound20,000 per QALY. RESULTS: Of the 389 participants, 247 had complete cost, EQ-5D and SF-6D data. According to the EQ-5D, option 1 had an estimated ICER of pound10,815 (compared with option 4), option 2 was dominated by option 1, and option 3 was subject to extended dominance. Conversely, according to the SF-6D, option 3 had an ICER of pound9999 (compared with option 4), option 2 had an ICER of pound36,883 (compared with option 3), and option 1 was subject to extended dominance. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D and SF-6D estimated that different options (1 and 3, respectively) were cost-effective at the pound20,000 per QALY threshold, demonstrating that the choice of measure does matter.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for improving social recovery in psychosis: cost-effectiveness analysis.

A randomised trial was conducted in order to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery orientated cognitive behavioural therapy (SRCBT) for people diagnosed with psychosis, compared to case management alone (CMA). The mean incremental health and social care cost, and the mean incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) gain, of SRCBT was calculated over the 9 month intervention period. The cost-effectiveness of SCRBT was in turn estimated, and considered in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of 20000 UK pounds per QALY. The level of uncertainty associated with that decision was estimated by calculating the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for SRCBT. N=35 received SRCBT and N=42 received CMA. The mean incremental cost was estimated to be 668 UK pounds, and the mean incremental QALY gain 0.035. SRCBT was estimated to be cost-effective as it had a cost per QALY of 18844 UK pounds, which was more favourable than the assumed cost-effectiveness threshold of 20000 UK pounds per QALY. At that threshold the probability of being cost-effective was however estimated to be 54.3% according to the CEAC, suggesting that further research may be warranted in order to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with the decision as to whether SRCBT is cost-effective.

Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores?

BACKGROUND: Mapping has been used to convert scores from condition-specific measures into utility scores, and to produce estimates of cost-effectiveness. We sought to compare the QALY gains, and incremental cost per QALY estimates, predicted on the basis of mapping to those based on actual EQ-5D scores. METHODS: In order to compare 4 different interventions 389 individuals were asked to complete both the EQ-5D and the Western Ontartio and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention. Using baseline data various mapping models were developed, where WOMAC scores were used to predict the EQ-5D scores. The performance of these models was tested by predicting the EQ-5D post-intervention scores. The preferred model (that with the lowest mean absolute error (MAE)) was used to predict the EQ-5D scores, at all time points, for individuals who had complete WOMAC and EQ-5D data. The mean QALY gain associated with each intervention was calculated, using both actual and predicted EQ-5D scores. These QALY gains, along with previously estimated changes in cost, were also used to estimate the actual and predicted incremental cost per QALY associated with each of the four interventions. RESULTS: The EQ-5D and the WOMAC were completed at baseline by 348 individuals, and at all time points by 259 individuals. The MAE in the preferred model was 0.129, and the mean QALY gains for each of the four interventions was predicted to be 0.006, 0.058, 0.058, and 0.136 respectively, compared to the actual mean QALY gains of 0.087, 0.081, 0.120, and 0.149. The most effective intervention was estimated to be associated with an incremental cost per QALY of pound6,068, according to our preferred model, compared to pound13,154 when actual data was used. CONCLUSION: We found that actual QALY gains, and incremental cost per QALY estimates, differed from those predicted on the basis of mapping. This suggests that though mapping may be of value in predicting the cost-effectiveness of interventions which have not been evaluated using a utility measure, future studies should be encouraged to include a method of actual utility measurement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785.

Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI).

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate how the optimal decision and level of uncertainty associated with that decision, can be presented when assessing the cost-effectiveness of multiple options. To explore and explain potentially counterintuitive results that can arise when analyzing multiple options. METHODS: A template was created, based on the assumption of multivariate normality, in order to replicate a previous analysis that compared the cost-effectiveness of multiple options. We used this template to explain some of the different shapes that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfection information (EVPI) may take, with changing correlation structure and variance between the multiple options. RESULTS: We show that it is possible for 1) an option that is subject to extended dominance to have the highest probability of being cost-effective for some values of the cost-effectiveness threshold; 2) the most cost-effective (optimal) option to never have the highest probability of being cost-effective; and 3) the EVPI to increase when the probability of making the wrong decision decreases. Changing the correlation structure between multiple options did not change the presentation of results on the cost-effectiveness plane. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness plane has limited use in representing the uncertainty surrounding multiple options as it cannot represent correlation between the options. CEACs can represent decision uncertainty, but should not be used to determine the optimal decision. Instead, the CEAF shows the decision uncertainty surrounding the optimal choice and this can be augmented by the EVPI to show the potential gains to further research.

An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether three health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) measures (the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS) can discriminate between the HRQL of different groups of individuals. METHODS: In one UK general practice a cross-sectional survey requested information on six sociodemographic factors, 10 clinical conditions, and the three HRQL measures. Regression analyses were used to assess whether there was a significant difference in HRQL between groups with different sociodemographic factors and those with and without clinical conditions. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred and sixty-five questionnaires were returned. There was a significant difference between the HRQL of the majority of different groups according to each HRQL measure. However, not all of the measures could discriminate between groups of different ethnicity, gender, or smoking status, or those with and without asthma, stroke, cancer or diabetes. CONCLUSION: The HRQL of the majority of different groups could be discriminated between by the EQ-5Dindex, SF-6D, and EQ VAS.