Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service. RESULTS: PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.

Setting a tariff for IVF and ICSI treatment: a cost analysis.

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are available in Scotland through the National Health Service (NHS) according to specific criteria. There is no standardised NHS tariff for these treatments in Scotland, and variation exists amongst different centres providing NHS services. The aim of this study was to calculate the mean cost of IVF and ICSI cycles for NHS-funded treatment in Scotland. A detailed cost analysis of fresh and frozen cycles was performed, and a breakdown of the various cost components was presented. A deterministic approach was applied using NHS-funded individual cycle data from 2015-2018 and aggregate data. All costs were calculated in UK pounds sterling (£- using 2018 prices). Resource use was assigned to individual cycles based on cycle-level data or expert-informed assumptions; whenever needed, average aggregate costs were assigned to cycles. A total of 9442 NHS-funded cycles were included in the analysis. The average cost of fresh IVF and ICSI cycles was £3247 [£1526-£4215] and £3473 [£1526-£4416], respectively. Frozen cycles averaged £938 [£272-£1085]. This data can be useful to decision-makers, especially where IVF/ICSI is publicly funded, as it delivers a detailed IVF/ICSI cost breakdown. It is an opportunity for other authorities to estimate IVF/ICSI costs, as the methods applied are clear and reproducible.

Financial incentives for quitting smoking in pregnancy: Are they cost-effective?

AIMS: To evaluate whether adding financial incentives to usual care is cost-effective in encouraging pregnant women to quit tobacco smoking, compared with usual care alone. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a health-care provider's perspective, embedded in the Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT III). Long-term analyses were conducted from the same perspective, using an existing Markov model over a life-time horizon. SETTING: Seven maternity smoking cessation sites in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: In the short-term analysis, CPIT III participants were assessed: women 16 years or older, self-reporting as smokers, fewer than 24 weeks pregnant and English-speaking (n = 944). The same population was used for the life-time analysis, plus their infants. MEASUREMENTS: Costs included financial incentive vouchers and postage, cessation support and nicotine replacement therapy and neonatal stays. The outcome measure was a biochemically verified quit rate for the CEA and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for CUA. Costs are presented in 2020 GBP sterling (£). Data for the life-time analysis came from the trial and were combined with data from published literature embedded in the model, reporting incremental cost per quitter and QALY. A 3.5% discount rate was applied. FINDINGS: The short-term incremental cost per quitter was £4400 and cost per QALY was £150 000. Results of sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. The long-term analysis combined costs and outcomes for mother and infants; results showed a cost saving of £37 [95% confidence interval (CI]) = £35-106] and increase in QALYs of 0.171 (95% CI = 0.124-0.229). These findings indicate that, over a life-time, financial incentives are cost-saving and improve health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In the United Kingdom, offering up to £400 financial incentives, in addition to usual care, to support pregnant women to stop smoking appears to be highly cost-effective over a life-time for mother and infants.

Implementation of a national smoke-free prison policy: an economic evaluation within the Tobacco in Prisons (TIPs) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a smoke-free prison policy in Scotland, through assessments of the trade-offs between costs (healthcare and non-healthcare-related expenditure) and outcomes (health and non-health-related non-monetary consequences) of implementing the policy. DESIGN: A health economic evaluation consisting of three analyses (cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility), from the perspectives of the healthcare payer, prison service, people in custody and operational staff, assessed the trade-offs between costs and outcomes. Costs associated with the implementation of the policy, healthcare resource use and personal spend on nicotine products were considered, alongside health and non-health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of the policy was evaluated over 12-month and lifetime horizons (short term and long term). SETTING: Scotland's national prison estate. PARTICIPANTS: People in custody and operational prison staff. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a comprehensive (indoor and outdoor) smoke-free policy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concentration of secondhand smoke, health-related quality of life (health utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)) and various non-health outcomes (eg, incidents of assaults and fires). RESULTS: The short-term analyses suggest cost savings for people in custody and staff, improvements in concentration of secondhand smoke, with no consistent direction of change across other outcomes. The long-term analysis demonstrated that implementing smoke-free policy was cost-effective over a lifetime for people in custody and staff, with approximate cost savings of £28 000 and £450, respectively, and improvement in health-related quality of life of 0.971 QALYs and 0.262, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a smoke-free prison policy is cost-effective over the short term and long term for people in custody and staff.

Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine effectiveness, cost effectiveness, generalisability, and acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy in addition to variously organised UK stop smoking services. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial phase 3 (CPIT III)). SETTING: Seven UK stop smoking services provided in primary and secondary care facilities in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. PARTICIPANTS: 944 pregnant women (age ≥16 years) who self-reported as being smokers (at least one cigarette in the past week) when asked at first maternity visit, less than 24 weeks' gestation, and notified to the trial team by routine stop smoking services. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the control group were offered the standard stop smoking services, which includes the offer of counselling by specially trained workers using withdrawal orientated therapy and the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy. The intervention was the offer of usual support from the stop smoking services and the addition of up to £400 ($440; €455) of LoveToShop financial voucher incentives for engaging with current stop smoking services or to stop smoking, or both, during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported smoking cessation in late pregnancy (between 34 and 38 weeks' gestation) corroborated by saliva cotinine (and anabasine if using nicotine replacement products). Results were adjusted for age, smoking years, index of multiple deprivation, Fagerström score, before or after covid, and recruitment site. Secondary outcomes included point and continuous abstinence six months after expected date of delivery, engagement with stop smoking services, biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks after stop smoking date, birth weight of baby, cost effectiveness, generalisability documenting formats of stop smoking services, and acceptability to pregnant women and their carers. RESULTS: From 9 January 2018 to 4 April 2020, of 4032 women screened by stop smoking services, 944 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=471) or the control group (n=470). Three people asked for their data to be removed. 126 (27%) of 471 participants stopped smoking from the intervention group and 58 (12%) of 470 from the control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.78 (1.94 to 3.97) P<0.001). Serious adverse events were miscarriages and other expected pregnancy events requiring hospital admission; all serious adverse events were unrelated to the intervention. Most people who stopped smoking from both groups relapsed after their baby was born. CONCLUSIONS: The offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives to stop smoking during pregnancy as an addition to current UK stop smoking services is highly effective. This bolt-on intervention supports new guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which includes the addition of financial incentives to support pregnant women to stop smoking. Continuing incentives to 12 months after birth is being examined to prevent relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15236311.

Beyond 10-Year Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol guidelines typically prioritize primary prevention statin therapy on the basis of 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. The advent of generic pricing may justify expansion of statin eligibility. Moreover, 10-year risk may not be the optimal approach for statin prioritization. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin eligibility and evaluated novel approaches to prioritization from a Scottish health sector perspective. METHODS: A computer simulation model predicted long-term health and cost outcomes in Scottish adults ≥40 years of age. Epidemiologic analysis was completed using the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort, Scottish Morbidity Records, and National Records of Scotland. A simulation cohort was constructed with data from the Scottish Health Survey 2011 and contemporary population estimates. Treatment and cost inputs were derived from published literature and health service cost data. The main outcome measure was the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, evaluated as cost (2020 GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Three approaches to statin prioritization were analyzed: 10-year risk scoring using the ASSIGN score, age-stratified risk thresholds to increase treatment rates in younger individuals, and absolute risk reduction (ARR)-guided therapy to increase treatment rates in individuals with elevated cholesterol levels. For each approach, 2 policies were considered: treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥20% (age-stratified risk threshold 20, ARR 20) and treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥10% (age-stratified risk threshold 10, ARR 10). RESULTS: Compared with an ASSIGN score ≥20%, reducing the risk threshold for statin initiation to 10% expanded eligibility from 804 000 (32% of adults ≥40 years of age without CVD) to 1 445 500 individuals (58%). This policy would be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £12 300/QALY [95% CI, £7690/QALY-£26 500/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥20%, ARR 20 produced ≈8800 QALYs and was cost-effective (£7050/QALY [95% CI, £4560/QALY-£10 700/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥10%, ARR 10 produced ≈7950 QALYs and was cost-effective (£11 700/QALY [95% CI, £9250/QALY-£16 900/QALY]). Both age-stratified risk threshold strategies were dominated (ie, more expensive and less effective than alternative treatment strategies). CONCLUSIONS: Generic pricing has rendered preventive statin therapy cost-effective for many adults. ARR-guided therapy is more effective than 10-year risk scoring and is cost-effective.

The Best Services Trial (BeST?): a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of New Orleans Intervention Model with services as usual (SAU) for infants and young children entering care.

BACKGROUND: Abused and neglected children are at increased risk of health problems throughout life, but negative effects may be ameliorated by nurturing family care. It is not known whether it is better to place these children permanently with substitute (foster or adoptive) families or to attempt to reform their birth families. Previously, we conducted a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the New Orleans Intervention Model (NIM) for children aged 0-60 months coming into foster care in Glasgow. NIM is delivered by a multidisciplinary health and social care team and offers families, whose child has been taken into foster care, a structured assessment of family relationships followed by a trial of treatment aiming to improve family functioning. A recommendation is then made for the child to return home or for adoption. In the feasibility RCT, families were willing to be randomised to NIM or optimised social work services as usual and equipoise was maintained. Here we present the protocol of a substantive RCT of NIM including a new London site. METHODS: The study is a multi-site, pragmatic, single-blind, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1. We plan to recruit approximately 390 families across the sites, including those recruited in our feasibility RCT. They will be randomly allocated to NIM or optimised services as usual and followed up to 2.5 years post-randomisation. The principal outcome measure will be child mental health, and secondary outcomes will be child quality of life, the time taken for the child to be placed in permanent care (rehabilitation home or adoption) and the quality of the relationship with the primary caregiver. DISCUSSION: The study is novel in that infant mental health professionals rarely have a role in judicial decisions about children's care placements, and RCTs are rare in the judicial context. The trial will allow us to determine whether NIM is clinically and cost-effective in the UK and findings may have important implications for the use of mental health assessment and treatment as part of the decision-making about children in the care system.

Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing has potential roles in identifying whether an individual would have risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from a particular medicine. Robust cost-effectiveness results on genetic testing would be useful for clinical practice and policy decision-making on allocating resources effectively. This study aimed to update a systematic review on economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to prevent ADRs and critically appraise the quality of reporting and sources of evidence for model input parameters. METHODS: We searched studies through Medline via PubMed, Scopus and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation up to October 2019. Studies investigating polymorphism-based pharmacogenetic testing, which guided drug therapies to prevent ADRs, using economic evaluation methods were included. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and assessed the quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines and the quality of data sources using the hierarchy of evidence developed by Cooper et al. RESULTS: Fifty-nine economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to avoid drug-induced ADRs were found between 2002 and 2018. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses were the most common methods of economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing. Most studies complied with the CHEERS checklist, except for single study-based economic evaluations which did not report uncertainty analysis (78%). There was a lack of high-quality evidence not only for estimating the clinical effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, but also baseline clinical data. About 14% of the studies obtained clinical effectiveness data of testing from a meta-analysis of case-control studies with direct comparison, which was not listed in the hierarchy of evidence used. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggested that future single study-based economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing should report uncertainty analysis, as this could significantly affect the robustness of economic evaluation results. A specific ranking system for the quality of evidence is needed for the economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing of ADRs. Differences in parameters, methods and outcomes across studies, as well as population-level and system-level differences, may lead to the difficulty of comparing cost-effectiveness results across countries.

A prognostic model, including quantitative fetal fibronectin, to predict preterm labour: the QUIDS meta-analysis and prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of preterm labour is challenging. False-positive diagnoses are common and result in unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments (e.g. tocolytics, antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulphate) and costly hospital admissions. Measurement of fetal fibronectin in vaginal fluid is a biochemical test that can indicate impending preterm birth. OBJECTIVES: To develop an externally validated prognostic model using quantitative fetal fibronectin concentration, in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and to assess its cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: The study comprised (1) a qualitative study to establish the decisional needs of pregnant women and their caregivers, (2) an individual participant data meta-analysis of existing studies to develop a prognostic model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days in women with symptoms of preterm labour based on quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors, (3) external validation of the prognostic model in a prospective cohort study across 26 UK centres, (4) a model-based economic evaluation comparing the prognostic model with qualitative fetal fibronectin, and quantitative fetal fibronectin with cervical length measurement, in terms of cost per QALY gained and (5) a qualitative assessment of the acceptability of quantitative fetal fibronectin. DATA SOURCES/SETTING: The model was developed using data from five European prospective cohort studies of quantitative fetal fibronectin. The UK prospective cohort study was carried out across 26 UK centres. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women at 22+0-34+6 weeks' gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY BEING ASSESSED: Quantitative fetal fibronectin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days. RESULTS: The individual participant data meta-analysis included 1783 women and 139 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 7.8%). The prognostic model that was developed included quantitative fetal fibronectin, smoking, ethnicity, nulliparity and multiple pregnancy. The model was externally validated in a cohort of 2837 women, with 83 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 2.93%), an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.93), a calibration slope of 1.22 and a Nagelkerke R2 of 0.34. The economic analysis found that the prognostic model was cost-effective compared with using qualitative fetal fibronectin at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥ 2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. LIMITATIONS: The outcome proportion (spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test) was 2.9% in the validation study. This is in line with other studies, but having slightly fewer than 100 events is a limitation in model validation. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic model that included quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors showed excellent performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test, was cost-effective and can be used to inform a decision support tool to help guide management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. FUTURE WORK: The prognostic model will be embedded in electronic maternity records and a mobile telephone application, enabling ongoing data collection for further refinement and validation of the model. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027590 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41598423. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Identifying which women with symptoms of labour will give birth early is challenging, so many women unnecessarily receive therapies aimed at preventing complications in preterm birth. A test called quantitative fetal fibronectin, which uses vaginal swab samples, may help to improve the diagnosis of preterm labour. Fetal fibronectin is a protein that is released from the fetal membranes that surround the developing baby in the womb. The lower the concentration of fetal fibronectin, the less likely the occurrence of preterm birth. Our aim was to see if quantitative fetal fibronectin, in combination with some features of pregnancy (e.g. previous pregnancy history and twin pregnancy), can accurately predict preterm birth in women who have symptoms of preterm labour. We asked women, their partners, doctors and midwives what information would be most useful to them, and how this should be presented. We then analysed previous research data; we used quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors together to predict the chance of preterm birth. We explored which features could predict preterm birth most effectively while still being good value to the NHS. To ensure that this risk predictor worked in UK populations, we undertook a research study across 26 UK hospitals. Women who had symptoms of preterm labour were invited to participate. We collected information from these women (approximately 3000 women), including quantitative fetal fibronectin results. We found that a risk predictor comprising quantitative fetal fibronectin and four other features performed best at predicting whether or not preterm birth will occur within the next week for women with symptoms of preterm labour, and that this had potential to be clinically useful and cost-effective. The quantitative fetal fibronectin testing process was acceptable to women, and clinicians found the risk predictor useful. We used our findings to develop a risk calculator to help women and clinicians assess how likely preterm birth is, and decide whether or not to start treatment.

Do clinical trials change practice? A longitudinal, international assessment of colorectal cancer prescribing practices.

INTRODUCTION: Over half of the 1.5 million individuals globally who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with stage II-III disease. Understanding clinician attitudes towards treatment for this group is paramount to contextualise real-world outcomes and plan future trials. The aim of this study was to assess clinician awareness of trials assessing the optimal duration of CRC adjuvant therapy, their attitudes towards shorter treatment and their self-reported practice. METHODS: A survey was developed using OnlineSurveys® and distributed to clinicians in April 2019, with a follow-up survey disseminated to a subset of respondents in August 2020. Microsoft Excel® and Stata® were used for analysis. RESULTS: 265 clinicians replied to the first survey, with the majority aware of findings from the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy collaboration and contributory trials. Practice change was greatest for patients under 70 with low-risk stage III CRC, with most uncertainty around using 3-months of doublet chemotherapy for high-risk stage II disease. In August 2020, clinicians (n = 106) were more likely to use 3-months of FOLFOX for low-risk stage III disease and 3-months of CAPOX for stage II disease compared to April 2019. There was no indication that the COVID-19 pandemic had enduring changes on treatment decisions beyond those made in response to trial evidence. DISCUSSION: Clinicians use a risk-stratified approach to treat CRC the adjuvant setting. Lower utilisation of doublet chemotherapy for older and stage II patients has affected the extent of trial implementation. Active dialogue regarding how trial results apply to these groups may improve consensus.

How has implementation been incorporated in health technology assessments in the United Kingdom? A systematic rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: Health interventions in a clinical setting may be complex. This is particularly true of clinical interventions which require systems reorganization or behavioural change, and/or when implementation involves additional challenges not captured within a clinical trial setting. Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions highlights the need to consider economic evaluation alongside implementation. However, the extent to which this guidance has been adhered to, and how, is unclear. The failure to incorporate implementation within the evaluation of an intervention may hinder the translation of research findings into routine practice. This will have consequences for patient care. This study examined the methods used to address implementation within health research conducted through funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review using a systematic approach. We included all NIHR HTA monographs which contained the word "implementation" within the title or abstract published between 2014 and 2020. We assessed the studies according to existing recommendations for specifying and reporting implementation approaches in research. Additional themes which were not included in the recommendation, but were of particular relevance to our research question, were also identified and summarized in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The extent to which implementation was formally incorporated, and defined, varied among studies. Methods for examining implementation ranged from single stakeholder engagement events to the more comprehensive process evaluation. There was no obvious pattern as to whether approaches to implementation had evolved over recent years. Approximately 50% (22/42) of studies included an economic evaluation. Of these, two studies included the use of qualitative data obtained within the study to quantitatively inform aspects relating to implementation and economic evaluation in their study. DISCUSSION: A variety of approaches were identified for incorporating implementation within an HTA. However, they did not go far enough in terms of incorporating implementation into the actual design and evaluation. To ensure the implementation of clinically effective and cost-effective interventions, we propose that further guidance on how to incorporate implementation within complex interventions is required. Incorporating implementation into economic evaluation provides a step in this direction.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model of preterm birth for women with preterm labour symptoms (the QUIDS study): A prospective cohort study and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely interventions in women presenting with preterm labour can substantially improve health outcomes for preterm babies. However, establishing such a diagnosis is very challenging, as signs and symptoms of preterm labour are common and can be nonspecific. We aimed to develop and externally validate a risk prediction model using concentration of vaginal fluid fetal fibronectin (quantitative fFN), in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and assessed its cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Pregnant women included in the analyses were 22+0 to 34+6 weeks gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of quantitative fFN test. The risk prediction model was developed and internally validated in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of 5 European prospective cohort studies (2009 to 2016; 1,783 women; mean age 29.7 years; median BMI 24.8 kg/m2; 67.6% White; 11.7% smokers; 51.8% nulliparous; 10.4% with multiple pregnancy; 139 [7.8%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The model was then externally validated in a prospective cohort study in 26 United Kingdom centres (2016 to 2018; 2,924 women; mean age 28.2 years; median BMI 25.4 kg/m2; 88.2% White; 21% smokers; 35.2% nulliparous; 3.5% with multiple pregnancy; 85 [2.9%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The developed risk prediction model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days included quantitative fFN, current smoking, not White ethnicity, nulliparity, and multiple pregnancy. After internal validation, the optimism adjusted area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92), and the optimism adjusted Nagelkerke R2 was 35% (95% CI 33% to 37%). On external validation in the prospective UK cohort population, the area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.94), and Nagelkerke R2 of 36% (95% CI: 34% to 38%). Recalibration of the model's intercept was required to ensure overall calibration-in-the-large. A calibration curve suggested close agreement between predicted and observed risks in the range of predictions 0% to 10%, but some miscalibration (underprediction) at higher risks (slope 1.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.26)). Despite any miscalibration, the net benefit of the model was higher than "treat all" or "treat none" strategies for thresholds up to about 15% risk. The economic analysis found the prognostic model was cost effective, compared to using qualitative fFN, at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. Study limitations include the limited number of participants who are not White and levels of missing data for certain variables in the development dataset. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a risk prediction model including vaginal fFN concentration and clinical risk factors showed promising performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test and has potential to inform management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. Further evaluation of the risk prediction model in clinical practice is required to determine whether the risk prediction model improves clinical outcomes if used in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (16/WS/0068). The study was registered with ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN 41598423) and NIHR Portfolio (CPMS: 31277).

Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks' gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost-utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained. RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: CHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32652461.

Three Versus Six Months of Adjuvant Doublet Chemotherapy for Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-Country Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Treatment (SCOT) trial demonstrated non-inferiority, less toxicity, and cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective of 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of shorter treatment and the budget impact of implementing trial findings from the perspectives of all countries recruited to SCOT: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual cost-utility analyses were performed from the perspective of each country. Resource, quality of life, and survival estimates from the SCOT trial (N = 6065) were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were undertaken. Using undiscounted costs from these cost-utility analyses, the impact on country-specific healthcare budgets of implementing the SCOT trial findings was calculated over a 5-year period. The currency used was US dollars (US$), and 2019 was the base year. One-way and scenario sensitivity analysis addressed uncertainty within the budget impact analysis. RESULTS: Three months of treatment were cost saving and cost-effective compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient ranged from US$8972 (Spain) to US$13,884 (Denmark). The healthcare budget impact over 5 years for the base-case scenario ranged from US$3.6 million (New Zealand) to US$61.4 million (UK) and totaled over US$150 million across all countries. CONCLUSION: This study has widened the transferability of results from the SCOT trial, showing that shorter treatment is cost-effective from a multi-country perspective. The vast savings from implementation could fully justify the investment in conducting the SCOT trial.

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: Performing cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews. METHODS: In total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research  impact evaluation going forward. RESULTS: In total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated. CONCLUSIONS: Impact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research  is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

A protocol for the economic evaluation of the smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III (CPIT III).

INTRODUCTION: Smoking results in an average 10-year loss of life, but smokers who permanently quit before age 40 can expect a near normal lifespan. Pregnancy poses a good opportunity to help women to stop; around 80% of women in the UK have a baby, most of whom are less than 40 years of age. Smoking prevalence during pregnancy is high: 17%-23% in the UK. Smoking during pregnancy causes low birth weight and increases the risk of premature birth. After birth, passive smoking is linked to sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory diseases and increased likelihood of taking up smoking. These risks impact the long-term health of the child with associated increase in health costs. Emerging evidence suggests that offering financial incentives to pregnant women to quit is highly cost effective.This protocol describes the economic evaluation of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial III, CPIT III) designed to establish whether offering financial incentives, in addition to usual care, is effective and cost effective in helping pregnant women to quit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation will identify, measure and value resource use and outcomes from CPIT III, comparing participants randomised to either usual care or usual care plus up to £400 financial incentives. Within-trial and long-term analyses will be conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective; the outcome for both analyses will be quality adjusted life-years measured using EQ-5D-5L. Patient level data collected during the trial will be used for the within-trial analysis, with an additional outcome of cotinine validated quit rates at 34-38 weeks gestation and 6 months postpartum. The long-term model will be informed by data from the trial and published literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15236311; Pre-results (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15236311).

Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.

INTRODUCTION: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Eradicating hepatitis C: Are novel screening strategies for people who inject drugs cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: In developed countries, people who inject drugs (PWID) have a high prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV), yet they are often under-diagnosed. The World Health Organization has set 2030 as a target year for HCV elimination. To meet this target, improving screening in convenient community settings in order to reach infected undiagnosed individuals is a priority. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of alternative novel strategies for diagnosing HCV infection in PWID. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to compare HCV screening at needle exchange centres, substance misuse services and at community pharmacies, with the standard practice of detection during general practitioners' consultations. A decision tree model was developed to assess the incremental cost per positive diagnosis, and a Markov model explored the net monetary benefit (NMB) and the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Needle exchange services provided a 7.45-fold increase in detecting positive individuals and an incremental cost of £12,336 per QALY gained against current practice (NMB £163,827), making this the most cost-effective strategy over a lifetime horizon. Screening at substance misuse services and pharmacies was cost-effective only at a £30,000/QALY threshold. With a 24% discount to HCV treatment list prices, all three screening strategies become cost-effective at £20,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting PWID populations with screening at needle exchange services is a highly cost-effective strategy for reaching undiagnosed HCV patients. When applying realistic discounts to list prices of drug treatments, all three strategies were highly cost-effective from a UK NHS perspective. All of these strategies have the potential to make a cost-effective contribution to the eradication of HCV by 2030.

The smoking cessation in pregnancy incentives trial (CPIT): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eighty per cent of UK women have at least one baby, making pregnancy an opportunity to help women stop smoking before their health is irreparably compromised. Smoking cessation during pregnancy helps protect infants from miscarriage, still birth, low birth weight, asthma, attention deficit disorder and adult cardiovascular disease. UK national guidelines highlight lack of evidence for effectiveness of financial incentives to help pregnant smokers quit. This includes a research recommendation: within a UK context, are incentives an acceptable, effective and cost-effective way to help pregnant women who smoke to quit? METHODS: The Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial (CPIT) III is a pragmatic, 42-month, multi-centre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial of the effect on smoking status of adding to usual Stop Smoking Services (SSS) support, the offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives, compared with usual support alone, to quit smoking during pregnancy. Participants (n = 940) are pregnant smokers (age > 16 years, < 24 weeks pregnant, English speaking), who consent via telephone to take part and are willing to be followed-up in late pregnancy and 6 months after birth. The primary outcome is cotinine/anabasine-validated abstinence from smoking in late pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include engagement with SSS, quit rates at 4 weeks from agreed quit date and 6 months after birth, and birth weight. Outcomes will be analysed by intention to treat, and regression models will be used to compare treatment effects on outcomes. A meta-analysis will include data from the feasibility study in Glasgow. An economic evaluation will assess cost-effectiveness from a UK NHS perspective. Process evaluation using a case-study approach will identify opportunities to improve recruitment and learning for future implementation. Research questions include: what is the therapeutic efficacy of incentives; are incentives cost-effective; and what are the potential facilitators and barriers to implementing incentives in different parts of the UK? DISCUSSION: This phase III trial in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland follows a successful phase II trial in Glasgow, UK. The participating sites have diverse SSS that represent most cessation services in the UK and serve demographically varied populations. If found to be acceptable and cost-effective, this trial could demonstrate that financial incentives are effective and transferable to most UK SSS for pregnant women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN15236311. Registered on 9 October 2017.

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Patients diagnosed with bowel cancer are likely to have surgery to remove the tumour. Patients diagnosed with a more advanced stage of the disease are then likely to be offered what is known as adjuvant chemotherapy ­ chemotherapy to kill any cancer cells that have already spread but cannot be seen. Adjuvant chemotherapy is usually given over 6 months using two medicines known as oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. This chemotherapy has side effects of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and it reduces the numbers of cells in the blood. It can also damage nerves, which causes discomfort, numbness and tingling; in some cases, this can go on for years. These side effects are more likely to develop with longer treatment. This study looked at whether or not shortening the time over which patients were given oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy reduced its effectiveness. In this large study of over 6000 patients, half of the patients were allocated by chance to be treated for 3 months and the other half to be treated for 6 months. Reducing the time that patients had chemotherapy from 6 months to 3 months did not make the treatment less effective. When patients treated with chemotherapy over 3 months were compared with those treated over 6 months, 77% of patients in both groups were well with no detectable disease 3 years after surgery. Patients were less likely to get side effects with 3-month chemotherapy. In particular, the chance of persistent long-term nerve damage was lower, resulting in patients with 3-month chemotherapy having better health-related quality of life. Overall, the study showed that 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bowel cancer is as effective as 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy and causes fewer side effects.