The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for trauma patients with uncontrolled torso haemorrhage: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the UK-REBOA trial).

BACKGROUND: Haemorrhage is the most common cause of preventable death after injury. REBOA is a novel technique whereby a percutaneously inserted balloon is deployed in the aorta, providing a relatively quick means of temporarily controlling haemorrhage and augmenting cerebral and coronary perfusion, until definitive control of haemorrhage can be attained. The aim of the UK-REBOA trial is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a policy of standard major trauma centre treatment plus REBOA, as compared with standard major trauma centre treatment alone, for the management of uncontrolled torso haemorrhage caused by injury. METHODS: Pragmatic, Bayesian, group-sequential, randomised controlled trial, performed in 16 major trauma centres in England. We aim to randomise 120 injured patients with suspected exsanguinating haemorrhage to either standard major trauma centre care plus REBOA or standard major trauma centre care alone. The primary clinical outcome is 90-day mortality. Secondary clinical outcomes include 3-h, 6-h, and 24-h mortality; in-hospital mortality; 6-month mortality; length of stay (in hospital and intensive care unit); 24-h blood product use; need for haemorrhage control procedure (operation or angioembolisation); and time to commencement of haemorrhage control procedure (REBOA, operation, or angioembolisation). The primary economic outcome is lifetime incremental cost per QALY gained, from a health and personal social services perspective. DISCUSSION: This study, which is the first to randomly allocate patients to treatment with REBOA or standard care, will contribute high-level evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of REBOA in the management of trauma patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage and will provide important data on the feasibility of implementation of REBOA into mainstream clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16184981.

Early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle closure glaucoma: an economic evaluation based on data from the EAGLE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) compared to standard care. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multicentre pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients were followed-up for 36 months, and data on health service usage and health state utility were collected and analysed within the trial time horizon. A Markov model was developed to extrapolate the results over a 5-year and 10-year time horizon. SETTING: 22 hospital eye services in the UK. POPULATION: Males and females aged 50 years or over with newly diagnosed PACG or primary angle closure (PAC). INTERVENTIONS: Lens extraction compared to standard care (ie, laser iridotomy followed by medical therapy and glaucoma surgery). OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of primary and secondary healthcare usage (UK NHS perspective), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for lens extraction versus standard care. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 67.5 (8.42), 57.5% were women, 44.6% had both eyes eligible, 1.4% were of Asian ethnicity and 35.4% had PAC. The mean health service costs were higher in patients randomised to lens extraction: £2467 vs £1486. The mean adjusted QALYs were also higher with early lens extraction: 2.602 vs 2.533. The ICER for lens extraction versus standard care was £14 284 per QALY gained at three years. Modelling suggests that the ICER may drop to £7090 per QALY gained by 5 years and that lens extraction may be cost saving by 10 years. Our results are generally robust to changes in the key input parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: We find that lens extraction has a 67-89% chance of being cost-effective at 3 years and that it may be cost saving by 10 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN44464607; Results.

Urinary incontinence in men after formal one-to-one pelvic-floor muscle training following radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (MAPS): two parallel randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common immediately after prostate surgery. Men are often advised to do pelvic-floor exercises, but evidence to support this is inconclusive. Our aim was to establish if formal one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training reduces incontinence. METHODS: We undertook two randomised trials in men in the UK who were incontinent 6 weeks after radical prostatectomy (trial 1) or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; trial 2) to compare four sessions with a therapist over 3 months with standard care and lifestyle advice only. Randomisation was by remote computer allocation. Our primary endpoints, collected via postal questionnaires, were participants' reports of urinary incontinence and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 12 months. Group assignment was masked from outcome assessors, but this masking was not possible for participants or caregivers. We used intention-to-treat analyses to compare the primary outcome at 12 months. This study is registered, number ISRCTN87696430. FINDINGS: In the intervention group in trial 1, the rate of urinary incontinence at 12 months (148 [76%] of 196) was not significantly different from the control group (151 [77%] of 195; absolute risk difference [RD] -1·9%, 95% CI -10 to 6). In trial 2, the difference in the rate of urinary incontinence at 12 months (126 [65%] of 194) from the control group was not significant (125 [62%] of 203; RD 3·4%, 95% CI -6 to 13). Adjusting for minimisation factors or doing treatment-received analyses did not change these results in either trial. No adverse effects were reported. In both trials, the intervention resulted in higher mean costs per patient (£180 and £209 respectively) but we did not identify evidence of an economically important difference in QALYs (0·002 [95% CI -0·027 to 0·023] and -0·00003 [-0·026 to 0·026]). INTERPRETATION: In settings where information about pelvic-floor exercise is widely available, one-to-one conservative physical therapy for men who are incontinent after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective. The high rates of persisting incontinence after 12 months suggest a substantial unrecognised and unmet need for management in these men. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme.

The effectiveness of early lens extraction with intraocular lens implantation for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible blindness. Although primary open-angle glaucoma is more common, primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) is more likely to result in irreversible blindness. By 2020, 5·3 million people worldwide will be blind because of PACG. The current standard care for PACG is a stepped approach of a combination of laser iridotomy surgery (to open the drainage angle) and medical treatment (to reduce intraocular pressure). If these treatments fail, glaucoma surgery (eg, trabeculectomy) is indicated. It has been proposed that, because the lens of the eye plays a major role in the mechanisms leading to PACG, early clear lens extraction will improve glaucoma control by opening the drainage angle. This procedure might reduce the need for drugs and glaucoma surgery, maintain good visual acuity, and improve quality of life compared with standard care.EAGLE aims to evaluate whether early lens extraction improves patient-reported, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness, compared with standard care. METHODS/DESIGN: EAGLE is a multicentre pragmatic randomized trial. All people presenting to the recruitment centres in the UK and east Asia with newly diagnosed PACG and who are at least 50 years old are eligible.The primary outcomes are EQ-5D, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Other outcomes are: vision and glaucoma-specific patient-reported outcomes, visual acuity, visual field, angle closure, number of medications, additional surgery (e.g., trabeculectomy), costs to the health services and patients, and adverse events.A single main analysis will be done at the end of the trial, after three years of follow-up. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomized (intention to treat). 400 participants (200 in each group) will be recruited, to have 90% power at 5% significance level to detect a difference in EQ-5D score between the two groups of 0·05, and a mean difference in intraocular pressure of 1·75 mm Hg. The study will have 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in the glaucoma surgery rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN44464607.