Alternative cascade-testing protocols for identifying and managing patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia: systematic reviews, qualitative study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Cascade testing the relatives of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is an efficient approach to identifying familial hypercholesterolaemia. The cascade-testing protocol starts with identifying an index patient with familial hypercholesterolaemia, followed by one of three approaches to contact other relatives: indirect approach, whereby index patients contact their relatives; direct approach, whereby the specialist contacts the relatives; or a combination of both direct and indirect approaches. However, it is unclear which protocol may be most effective. Objectives: The objectives were to determine the yield of cases from different cascade-testing protocols, treatment patterns, and short- and long-term outcomes for people with familial hypercholesterolaemia; to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative protocols for familial hypercholesterolaemia cascade testing; and to qualitatively assess the acceptability of different cascade-testing protocols to individuals and families with familial hypercholesterolaemia, and to health-care providers. Design and methods: This study comprised systematic reviews and analysis of three data sets: PASS (PASS Software, Rijswijk, the Netherlands) hospital familial hypercholesterolaemia databases, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)-Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) linked primary-secondary care data set, and a specialist familial hypercholesterolaemia register. Cost-effectiveness modelling, incorporating preceding analyses, was undertaken. Acceptability was examined in interviews with patients, relatives and health-care professionals. Result: Systematic review of protocols: based on data from 4 of the 24 studies, the combined approach led to a slightly higher yield of relatives tested [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37% to 42%] than the direct (33%, 95% CI 28% to 39%) or indirect approaches alone (34%, 95% CI 30% to 37%). The PASS databases identified that those contacted directly were more likely to complete cascade testing (p < 0.01); the CPRD-HES data set indicated that 70% did not achieve target treatment levels, and demonstrated increased cardiovascular disease risk among these individuals, compared with controls (hazard ratio 9.14, 95% CI 8.55 to 9.76). The specialist familial hypercholesterolaemia register confirmed excessive cardiovascular morbidity (standardised morbidity ratio 7.17, 95% CI 6.79 to 7.56). Cost-effectiveness modelling found a net health gain from diagnosis of -0.27 to 2.51 quality-adjusted life-years at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £15,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The cost-effective protocols cascaded from genetically confirmed index cases by contacting first- and second-degree relatives simultaneously and directly. Interviews found a service-led direct-contact approach was more reliable, but combining direct and indirect approaches, guided by index patients and family relationships, may be more acceptable. Limitations: Systematic reviews were not used in the economic analysis, as relevant studies were lacking or of poor quality. As only a proportion of those with primary care-coded familial hypercholesterolaemia are likely to actually have familial hypercholesterolaemia, CPRD analyses are likely to underestimate the true effect. The cost-effectiveness analysis required assumptions related to the long-term cardiovascular disease risk, the effect of treatment on cholesterol and the generalisability of estimates from the data sets. Interview recruitment was limited to white English-speaking participants. Conclusions: Based on limited evidence, most cost-effective cascade-testing protocols, diagnosing most relatives, select index cases by genetic testing, with services directly contacting relatives, and contacting second-degree relatives even if first-degree relatives have not been tested. Combined approaches to contact relatives may be more suitable for some families. Future work: Establish a long-term familial hypercholesterolaemia cohort, measuring cholesterol levels, treatment and cardiovascular outcomes. Conduct a randomised study comparing different approaches to contact relatives. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018117445 and CRD42019125775. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia is an inherited condition that causes raised cholesterol levels from birth and increases risk of heart disease if left untreated. After someone in a family is found to have familial hypercholesterolaemia (called an index case), their close relatives need to be contacted and checked to see if they have familial hypercholesterolaemia, using genetic or cholesterol testing. This is called 'cascade testing'. We planned to find the most cost-effective and acceptable way to do this. The relatives could be contacted for testing by the index case (indirect approach), by a health-care professional (direct approach) or by a combination of both approaches. We found, based on looking at hospital records, that more relatives were tested if health-care professionals directly contacted relatives. In previous studies, slightly more relatives were tested for familial hypercholesterolaemia with a combination approach. Interviews with patients also suggested that the direct approach was the most effective, but the most acceptable and successful approach depends on family relationships: using one approach for some families and using both for other families. Furthermore, by looking at the health-care records of large numbers of patients, we confirmed that people with a recorded diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia in general practice records have a much higher risk of heart disease than the general population, and this was especially so for those with previous heart disease and/or raised cholesterols levels when diagnosed. However, one-quarter of new patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia recorded in their records were not treated within 2 years, with less than one-third reaching recommended cholesterol levels. We used what we had learned to help us estimate the most cost-effective way to do cascade testing. This showed that if the health service directly contact all relatives simultaneously for further assessment, rather than the current approach whereby close (first-degree) relatives are contacted first, this was cost-effective and good value for money.

Economic evaluation of self-help group interventions for health in LMICs: a scoping review.

This scoping review aims to identify and critically appraise published economic evaluations of self-help group (SHG) interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that seek to improve health and potentially also non-health outcomes. Through a systematic search of MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), EMBASE Ovid, PsychINFO, EconLit (Ovid) and Global Index Medicus, we identified studies published between 2014 and 2020 that were based in LMICs, included at least a health outcome, estimated intervention costs and reported the methods used. We critically analysed whether the methods employed can meaningfully inform decisions by ministries of health and other sectors, including donors, regarding whether to fund such interventions, and prioritized the aspects of evaluations that support decision-making and cross-sectoral decision-making especially. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials were the most commonly used vehicle to collect data and to establish a causal effect across studies. While all studies clearly stated one or more perspectives justifying the costs and effects that are reported, few papers clearly laid out the decision context or the decision maker(s) informed by the study. The latter is required to inform which costs, effects and opportunity costs are relevant to the decision and should be included in the analysis. Costs were typically reported from the provider or health-care sector perspective although other perspectives were also employed. Four papers reported outcomes in terms of a generic measure of health. Contrary to expectation, no studies reported outcomes beyond health. Our findings suggest limitations in the extent to which published studies are able to inform decision makers around the value of implementing SHG interventions in their particular context. Funders can make better informed decisions when evidence is presented using a cross-sectoral framework.

How does cholesterol burden change the case for investing in familial hypercholesterolaemia? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to ascertain how the long-term benefits and costs of diagnosis and treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) vary by prognostic factors and 'cholesterol burden', which is the effect of long-term exposure to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: A new cost-effectiveness model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), informed by routine data from individuals with FH. The primary outcome was net health gain (i.e., health benefits net of the losses due to costs), expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at the £15,000/QALY threshold. Prognostic factors included pre-treatment LDL-C, age, gender, and CVD history. RESULTS: If cholesterol burden is considered, diagnosis resulted in positive net health gain (i.e., it is cost-effective) in all individuals with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 4 mmol/L, and in those with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 2 mmol/L aged ≥50 years or who have CVD history. If cholesterol burden is not considered, diagnosis resulted in lower net health gain, but still positive in children aged 10 years with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 6 mmol/L and adults aged 30 years with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 4 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis and treatment of most people with FH results in large net health gains, particularly in those with higher pre-treatment LDL-C. Economic evaluations of FH interventions should consider the sensitivity of the study conclusions to cholesterol burden, particularly where interventions target younger patients, and explicitly consider prognostic factors such as pre-treatment LDL-C, age, and CVD history.

Cost-effectiveness of 5 fraction and partial breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer in the UK: model-based multi-trial analysis.

PURPOSE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of 4 radiotherapy modalities to treat early breast cancer in the UK. In a subgroup of patients eligible for all modalities, we compared whole-breast (WB) and partial breast (PB) radiotherapy delivered in either 15 (WB15F, PB15F) or 5 fractions (WB5F, PB5F). In a subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy, we compared WB15F to WB5F. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model to simulate lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each modality. This was informed by the clinical analysis of two non-inferiority trials (FAST Forward and IMPORT LOW) and supplemented with external literature. The primary analysis assumed that radiotherapy modality influences health only through its impact on locoregional recurrence and radiotherapy-related adverse events. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, PB5F had the least cost and greatest expected QALYs. WB5F had the least cost and the greatest expected QALYs in those only eligible for WB radiotherapy. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15,000/QALY, there was a 62% chance that PB5F was the cost-effective alternative in the PB eligible group, and there was a 100% chance that WB5F was cost-effective in the subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.

Avoiding Opportunity Cost Neglect in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment.

Despite being a fundamental tenet of economic analysis there is a lack of clarity regarding the relevance of opportunity costs to cost-effectiveness analysis for health technology assessment. We argue that this is due, in part, to the importance of the decision context in understanding the nature of opportunity costs. Taking the example of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales, we explore the implications of existing discrepancies between policy thresholds and emerging empirical evidence of health opportunity costs. In particular, we consider analysts communicating the results of cost-effectiveness analysis, and recommend that analysts provide analysis according to both the policy threshold and the latest empirical evidence until the discrepancies are better understood or resolved. A number of conceptually related, but distinct, issues are discussed and clarified.

Effectiveness of cascade testing strategies in relatives for familial hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cascade testing in relatives of index cases is the most cost-effective approach to identifying people with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH); however, it is currently unclear which strategy to contact relatives would be the most effective. A systematic review was performed to quantify the effectiveness of different strategies in cascade testing of FH. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of three electronic databases and grey literature sources were done (from inception to May 2020). Screening, data extraction and assessments of methodological quality were made independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using random effects models. Effect measures are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 24 non-comparative studies were included, of which 11 used a direct, 8 used an indirect, and 5 used a combination of both direct and indirect cascade strategies. The median number of new relatives with FH per known index case was approximately 1. The combination strategy resulted in the largest yields of relatives tested for FH out of those contacted (40%, 95% CI 37%-42%, 1 study) and relatives responding to testing out of those contacted (54%, 1 study); however, the direct strategy had the largest yield of index cases participating in cascade testing out of those with FH confirmed (94%, 8 studies) compared to other strategies (p ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is limited; however, a combination strategy, which allows the index case to decide on method of contacting relatives, appears to lead to better yields compared to using the direct or indirect strategy.

Evidence for the impact of interventions and medicines reconciliation on problematic polypharmacy in the UK: A rapid review of systematic reviews.

This was a rapid review of systematic reviews (SRs) on problematic polypharmacy (PP) in the UK. The commissioner-defined topics were burden of PP, interventions to reduce PP, implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions, and efficient handover between primary and secondary care to reduce PP. Databases including Medline were searched to June 2019, SR quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Except for burden of PP (SRs had to include UK studies), there were no restrictions on country, location of care or outcomes. Nine SRs were included. On burden, three SRs (including six UK studies) found a high prevalence of polypharmacy in long term care. PP was associated with mortality, although unclear if causal, with no information on costs or health consequences. On interventions, six reviews (27 UK studies) found that interventions can reduce PP, but no effects on health outcomes. On handover between primary and secondary care, one review (two UK studies) found medicine reconciliation activities to reduce medication discrepancies at care transitions reduce PP, although the evidence is low quality. No SRs on implementation activities to increase uptake of interventions were found. SR quality was variable, with some concerns regarding meta-analysis methods. Evidence of the extent of PP in the UK, and what interventions to address it are effective in the UK, is limited. Future UK research is needed on the prevalence and consequences of PP, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce PP, and barriers and activities to ensure uptake.

Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England.

OBJECTIVES: To provide national estimates of the number and clinical and economic burden of medication errors in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: We used UK-based prevalence of medication errors (in prescribing, dispensing, administration and monitoring) in primary care, secondary care and care home settings, and associated healthcare resource use, to estimate annual number and burden of errors to the NHS. Burden (healthcare resource use and deaths) was estimated from harm associated with avoidable adverse drug events (ADEs). RESULTS: We estimated that 237 million medication errors occur at some point in the medication process in England annually, 38.4% occurring in primary care; 72% have little/no potential for harm and 66 million are potentially clinically significant. Prescribing in primary care accounts for 34% of all potentially clinically significant errors. Definitely avoidable ADEs are estimated to cost the NHS £98 462 582 per year, consuming 181 626 bed-days, and causing/contributing to 1708 deaths. This comprises primary care ADEs leading to hospital admission (£83.7 million; causing 627 deaths), and secondary care ADEs leading to longer hospital stay (£14.8 million; causing or contributing to 1081 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Ubiquitous medicines use in health care leads unsurprisingly to high numbers of medication errors, although most are not clinically important. There is significant uncertainty around estimates due to the assumption that avoidable ADEs correspond to medication errors, data quality, and lack of data around longer-term impacts of errors. Data linkage between errors and patient outcomes is essential to progress understanding in this area.

Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection: the PREVAIL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS. DESIGN: Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England. SETTING: The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size). INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin-miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Study 1 - time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 - cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 - risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data. RESULTS: Study 1, clinical effectiveness - 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 430; standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 431). Bloodstream infections occurred in 46 babies (10.7%) randomised to antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters and in 44 (10.2%) babies randomised to standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. No difference in time to bloodstream infection was detected (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.67; p = 0.63). Secondary outcomes of rifampicin resistance in positive blood/cerebrospinal fluid cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge and time to peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal were similar in both groups. Rifampicin resistance in positive peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip cultures was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter group (relative risk 3.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 10.57; p = 0.02) than in the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter group. Adverse events were similar in both groups. Study 2, economic evaluation - the mean cost of babies' hospital care was £83,473. Antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters were not cost-effective. Given the increased price, compared with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters, the minimum reduction in risk of bloodstream infection for antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters to be cost-effective was 3% and 15% for babies born at 23-27 and 28-32 weeks' gestation, respectively. Study 3, generalisability analysis - risk-adjusted bloodstream infection rates per 1000 peripherally inserted central venous catheter days were similar among babies in the trial and in all neonatal units. Of all bloodstream infections in babies receiving intensive or high-dependency care in neonatal units, 46% occurred during peripherally inserted central venous catheter days. LIMITATIONS: The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin-miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child's life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394. 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. 24, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Babies who are born too early or who are very sick require intensive care after birth and during early life. Most will have a long, narrow, plastic tube, called a catheter, inserted into a vein. The catheter is used to give babies fluids containing medicines and nutrition to keep them well and help them grow. The catheter can remain in place for several days or weeks. But the presence of plastic tubing in the vein increases the risk of infection. This study aimed to find out whether or not catheters coated with antimicrobial medicines, called rifampicin and miconazole, could reduce the risk of infection. These medicines act by stopping germs from growing on the catheter, but do not harm the baby or interfere with other treatments. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 18 neonatal units in England. Whenever a baby needed a catheter, their parents were asked for consent to participate in the trial. The baby was then randomised, similar to tossing a coin, to receive either the antimicrobial catheter or a standard one. A total of 861 babies participated. We followed up all babies in the same way until after the catheter was removed to compare how often babies in each group had an infection. It was found that antimicrobial catheters were no better or worse at preventing infection than standard catheters. Antimicrobial catheters cost more and we found no evidence of benefit; these results suggest that their use in neonatal intensive care is not justified. It was calculated that further research on ways to reduce infection may be good value for money, depending on the costs of this research. The babies who took part in this study were typical of babies in England receiving catheters, meaning that the results can be applied across the NHS. Future research should focus on catheters that contain other types of antimicrobials and alternative ways of preventing infection.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies preventing late-onset infection in preterm infants.

OBJECTIVE: Developing a model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of interventions preventing late-onset infection (LOI) in preterm infants and applying it to the evaluation of anti-microbial impregnated peripherally inserted central catheters (AM-PICCs) compared with standard PICCs (S-PICCs). DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from the Preventing infection using Antimicrobial Impregnated Long Lines (PREVAIL) randomised controlled trial linked to routine healthcare data, supplemented with published literature. The model assumes that LOI increases the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units in the UK National Health Service (NHS). PATIENTS: Infants born ≤32 weeks gestational age, requiring a 1 French gauge PICC. INTERVENTIONS: AM-PICC and S-PICC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare costs over the infants' expected lifetime. RESULTS: Severe NDI reduces life expectancy by 14.79 (95% CI 4.43 to 26.68; undiscounted) years, 10.63 (95% CI 7.74 to 14.02; discounted) QALYs and costs £19 057 (95% CI £14 197; £24697; discounted) to the NHS. If LOI causes NDI, the maximum acquisition price of an intervention reducing LOI risk by 5% is £120. AM-PICCs increase costs (£54.85 (95% CI £25.95 to £89.12)) but have negligible impact on health outcomes (-0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.04) QALYs), compared with S-PICCs. The NHS can invest up to £2.4 million in research to confirm that AM-PICCs are not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The model quantifies health losses and additional healthcare costs caused by NDI and LOI during neonatal care. Given these consequences, interventions preventing LOI, even by a small extent, can be cost-effective. AM-PICCs, being less effective and more costly than S-PICC, are not likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03260517.

Outcomes of reablement and their measurement: Findings from an evaluation of English reablement services.

Reablement - or restorative care - is a central feature of many western governments' approaches to supporting and enabling older people to stay in their own homes and minimise demand for social care. Existing evidence supports this approach although further research is required to strengthen the certainty of conclusions being drawn. In countries where reablement has been rolled out nationally, an additional research priority - to develop an evidence base on models of delivery - is emerging. This paper reports a prospective cohort study of individuals referred to three English social care reablement services, each representing a different model of service delivery. Outcomes included healthcare- and social care-related quality of life, functioning, mental health and resource use (service costs, informal carer time, out-of-pocket costs). In contrast with the majority of other studies, self-report measures were the predominant source of outcomes and resource use data. Furthermore, no previous evaluation has used a global measure of mental health. Outcomes data were collected on entry to the service, discharge and 6 months post discharge. A number of challenges were encountered during the study and insufficient individuals were recruited in two research sites to allow a comparison of service models. Findings from descriptive analyses of outcomes align with previous studies and positive changes were observed across all outcome domains. Improvements observed at discharge were, for most, retained at 6 months follow-up. Patterns of change in functional ability point to the importance of assessing functioning in terms of basic and extended activities of daily living. Findings from the economic evaluation highlight the importance of collecting data on informal carer time and also demonstrate the viability of collecting resource use data direct from service users. The study demonstrates challenges, and value, of including self-report outcome and resource use measures in evaluations of reablement.

Investigating the economic case of a service to support carers of people with dementia: A cross-sectional survey-based feasibility study in England.

Carers contribute essential support to enable people with dementia to continue living within the community. Admiral Nurses provide specialist dementia support for carers of people with dementia, including offering expert emotional support and guidance, and work to join up different parts of the health and social care system to address needs in a co-ordinated way. The cost-effectiveness of this service is not clear. We undertook a feasibility study to explore related outcomes and costs for these carers. A cross-sectional, clustered survey was undertaken in England in 2017, in areas with and without Admiral Nursing (AN). The survey questionnaire included questions on the characteristics of the carers and the person with dementia, outcomes (care-related quality of life [CRQoL], self-efficacy and subjective well-being), use of health and social care services, out-of-pocket costs and time spent on informal care. We used different econometric techniques to compare the outcomes and the costs of the carers with and without AN services: linear regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variables analysis. These techniques allowed us to control for differences in observed and unobserved characteristics between the two groups of carers which determined outcomes and costs. We concluded that AN services might have a positive effect on carers' CRQoL, self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Furthermore, we found little difference in costs between carers using AN and those using usual care, or in the costs of the people with dementia they care for. Our findings provided an initial indication as to whether AN services could be good value for money. The key limitation of the study was the difficulty in controlling for unobserved characteristics because of the cross-sectional nature of our observational data. To diminish this limitation, our survey could be used in future studies following carers with and without AN services over time.

Correction to: Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial.

The Open Access license, which previously read.

Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.

BACKGROUND: Men with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy can cause side effects and has relatively poor diagnostic accuracy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-guided biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVES: To (1) assess the ability of mpMRI to identify men who can safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, (2) assess the ability of the mpMRI-based pathway to improve the rate of detection of clinically significant (CS) cancer compared with TRUS-guided biopsy and (3) estimate the cost-effectiveness of a mpMRI-based diagnostic pathway. DESIGN: A validating paired-cohort study and an economic evaluation using a decision-analytic model. SETTING: Eleven NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men at risk of prostate cancer undergoing a first prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent three tests: (1) mpMRI (the index test), (2) TRUS-guided biopsy (the current standard) and (3) template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy (the reference test). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, TRUS-guided biopsy and TPM-biopsy measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using primary and secondary definitions of CS cancer. The percentage of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was used to identify men who might be able to avoid biopsy. RESULTS: Diagnostic study - a total of 740 men were registered and 576 underwent all three tests. According to TPM-biopsy, the prevalence of any cancer was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67% to 75%]. The prevalence of CS cancer according to the primary definition (a Gleason score of ≥ 4 + 3 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm) was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%). For CS cancer, TRUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 42% to 55%), specificity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%), PPV of 90% (95% CI 83% to 94%) and NPV of 74% (95% CI 69% to 78%). The sensitivity of mpMRI was 93% (95% CI 88% to 96%), specificity was 41% (95% CI 36% to 46%), PPV was 51% (95% CI 46% to 56%) and NPV was 89% (95% CI 83% to 94%). A negative mpMRI scan was recorded for 158 men (27%). Of these, 17 were found to have CS cancer on TPM-biopsy. Economic evaluation - the most cost-effective strategy involved testing all men with mpMRI, followed by MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy in those patients with suspected CS cancer, followed by rebiopsy if CS cancer was not detected. This strategy is cost-effective at the TRUS-guided biopsy definition 2 (any Gleason pattern of ≥ 4 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm), mpMRI definition 2 (lesion volume of ≥ 0.2 ml and/or Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4) and cut-off point 2 (likely to be benign) and detects 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%) of CS cancers. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the unit costs of tests, the improvement in sensitivity of MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy compared with blind TRUS-guided biopsy and the longer-term costs and outcomes of men with cancer. LIMITATIONS: The PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) was carried out in a selected group and excluded men with a prostate volume of > 100 ml, who are less likely to have cancer. The limitations in the economic modelling arise from the limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and on the sensitivity of MRI-targeted repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating mpMRI into the diagnostic pathway as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy may (1) reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies, (2) improve the detection of CS prostate cancer and (3) increase the cost-effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. The PROMIS data set will be used for future research; this is likely to include modelling prognostic factors for CS cancer, optimising MRI scan sequencing and biomarker or translational research analyses using the blood and urine samples collected. Better-quality evidence on long-term outcomes in prostate cancer under the various management strategies is required to better assess cost-effectiveness. The value-of-information analysis should be developed further to assess new research to commission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16082556 and NCT01292291. 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. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.

Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of randomised controlled trials are a key source of information for health care decision makers. Missing data are, however, a common issue that can seriously undermine their validity. A major concern is that the chance of data being missing may be directly linked to the unobserved value itself [missing not at random (MNAR)]. For example, patients with poorer health may be less likely to complete quality-of-life questionnaires. However, the extent to which this occurs cannot be ascertained from the data at hand. Guidelines recommend conducting sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of conclusions to plausible MNAR assumptions, but this is rarely done in practice, possibly because of a lack of practical guidance. This tutorial aims to address this by presenting an accessible framework and practical guidance for conducting sensitivity analysis for MNAR data in trial-based CEA. We review some of the methods for conducting sensitivity analysis, but focus on one particularly accessible approach, where the data are multiply-imputed and then modified to reflect plausible MNAR scenarios. We illustrate the implementation of this approach on a weight-loss trial, providing the software code. We then explore further issues around its use in practice.

Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS).

BACKGROUND: The current recommendation of using transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSB) to diagnose prostate cancer misses clinically significant (CS) cancers. More sensitive biopsies (eg, template prostate mapping biopsy [TPMB]) are too resource intensive for routine use, and there is little evidence on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI). OBJECTIVE: To identify the most effective and cost-effective way of using these tests to detect CS prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cost-effectiveness modelling of health outcomes and costs of men referred to secondary care with a suspicion of prostate cancer prior to any biopsy in the UK National Health Service using information from the diagnostic Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). INTERVENTION: Combinations of MPMRI, TRUSB, and TPMB, using different definitions and diagnostic cut-offs for CS cancer. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Strategies that detect the most CS cancers given testing costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) given long-term costs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The use of MPMRI first and then up to two MRI-targeted TRUSBs detects more CS cancers per pound spent than a strategy using TRUSB first (sensitivity = 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.92-0.98] vs 0.91 [95% CI 0.86-0.94]) and is cost effective (ICER = £7,076 [€8350/QALY gained]). The limitations stem from the evidence base in the accuracy of MRI-targeted biopsy and the long-term outcomes of men with CS prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: An MPMRI-first strategy is effective and cost effective for the diagnosis of CS prostate cancer. These findings are sensitive to the test costs, sensitivity of MRI-targeted TRUSB, and long-term outcomes of men with cancer, which warrant more empirical research. This analysis can inform the development of clinical guidelines. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that, under certain assumptions, the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging first and then up to two transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy is better than the current clinical standard and is good value for money.

How to Invest in Getting Cost-effective Technologies into Practice? A Framework for Value of Implementation Analysis Applied to Novel Oral Anticoagulants.

Cost-effective interventions are often implemented slowly and suboptimally in clinical practice. In such situations, a range of implementation activities may be considered to increase uptake. A framework is proposed to use cost-effectiveness analysis to inform decisions on how best to invest in implementation activities. This framework addresses 2 key issues: 1) how to account for changes in utilization in the future in the absence of implementation activities; and 2) how to prioritize implementation efforts between subgroups. A case study demonstrates the framework's application: novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the prevention of stroke in the National Health Service in England and Wales. The results suggest that there is value in additional implementation activities to improve uptake of NOACs, particularly in targeting patients with average or poor warfarin control. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, additional investment in an educational activity that increases the utilization of NOACs by 5% in all patients currently taking warfarin generates an additional 254 QALYs, compared with 973 QALYs in the subgroup with average to poor warfarin control. However, greater value could be achieved with higher uptake of anticoagulation more generally: switching 5% of patients who are potentially eligible for anticoagulation but are currently receiving no treatment or are using aspirin would generate an additional 4990 QALYs. This work can help health services make decisions on investment at different points of the care pathway or across disease areas in a manner consistent with the value assessment of new interventions.

Models of reablement evaluation (MoRE): a study protocol of a quasi-experimental mixed methods evaluation of reablement services in England.

BACKGROUND: Reablement is a time-limited intervention that aims to support people to regain independence and enable them to resume their daily activities after they return home from an in-patient care setting, or to maintain independence to enable them to remain at home. There is some evidence that reablement can enhance independence and has the potential to contain costs. However, reablement services are funded and provided in different ways and by different organisations, and there is limited research evidence about the effectiveness of different reablement service models. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different reablement service models and service users' and carers' experiences of reablement in England, UK. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will use a quasi-experimental mixed methods design that comprises three work packages (WP) extending over a period of 34 months. WP1 will conduct cluster analysis on survey data to develop a typology of current models of reablement services in order to describe the current reablement service landscape. WP2 will comprise a quantitative outcomes evaluation of the effectiveness of the different service models; a process evaluation and an economic evaluation. WP2 will be set within generic reablement services, where providers are using the most commonly employed generic reablement service types identified in WP1; the primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L. WP3 will provide evidence about specialist reablement services and how specialist approaches and practices are organised and delivered. DISCUSSION: Managing demands on care services is, and will remain, a crucial factor for the UK National Health Service as the number of people with long-term conditions rise. There has been, and will continue to be, significant investment in reablement services. The proposed study will address several key areas where there is limited evidence regarding the organisation and delivery of reablement services in England, UK. Specifically, it will provide new evidence on different models of reablement services that will be of direct benefit to health and social care managers, commissioners and their partner organisations.

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of daclatasvir (Bristol-Myers Squibb) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products within its licensed indication for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the ERG's critical review of the evidence presented in the company submission in the context of a description of the company submission, and the resulting NICE guidance. The main clinical effectiveness data for daclatasvir in combination with sofosbuvir (daclatasvir + sofosbuvir) were derived from two uncontrolled open-label trials. Among patients with genotype 1 infection, 98-100 % of patients had a sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12), overall. Among genotype 3 patients, between 85 and 100 % had SVR12 across patient populations and regimens. The main evidence for daclatasvir + pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) came from one randomised controlled trial comparing daclatasvir + PR with PR in patients with genotype 4. This found an SVR12 rate of 82 % in previously untreated patients. Serious adverse event rates associated with daclatasvir were low. The lack of comparative trial evidence for daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and many of the comparators defined in the NICE scope meant that established methods for comparing interventions either directly via head-to-head trial comparisons or via adjusted indirect comparisons were not feasible. Comparisons of SVR rates were therefore largely based on unadjusted estimates drawn from individual trial arms and subgroups of individual trial arms. The ERG concluded that, despite limited evidence, daclatasvir in combination with other treatments appeared to be associated with a high SVR rate. Daclatasvir + sofosbuvir was unlikely to be inferior to comparator treatments in genotype 1 patients; but, due to limited evidence, the relative efficacy of daclatasvir and other treatments in genotype 3 and 4 patients or patients with compensated cirrhosis was uncertain. The economic evaluation compared daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and daclatasvir + PR with a wide range of NICE-approved treatments for hepatitis C. The company submission focused on a series of subgroups defined by disease severity (METAVIR fibrosis stage F3, compensated cirrhosis), genotype and treatment history. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective at a £20,000-£30,000 per QALY threshold in the following F3 populations: genotype 1 treatment naïve (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = £19,739/QALY) and treatment experienced (£15,687/QALY) and genotypes 1, 3 and 4 interferon ineligible or intolerant (£5906-£9607/QALY depending on subgroup). In patients with cirrhosis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were not cost effective. The ERG found the company's economic analyses to be highly uncertain and in places biased. However, the ERG found that daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective in certain populations with significant fibrosis, and following new analyses by the company after a price reduction, in certain populations with cirrhosis, including patients who were not eligible for or who were intolerant to interferon therapy. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that daclatasvir + sofosbuvir should be available as an option in genotype 1 and 4 patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis, who had either been treated previously or were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. In response to the preliminary recommendation, the manufacturer submitted additional information including comparator SVR rates and a revised confidential price. Following this, the Committee expanded its original recommendation in its Final Appraisal Determination. The recommendation was expanded to include daclatasvir + sofosbuvir as an option for patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis (in previously untreated patients with genotype 1, and genotype 3 patients ineligible or intolerant to interferon) and genotype 1, 3 and 4 cirrhotic patients who were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. Daclatasvir + PR was also recommended as an option for genotype 4 patients who had significant fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.