Long-term health conditions and UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Long-term health conditions can affect labour market outcomes. COVID-19 may have increased labour market inequalities, e.g. due to restricted opportunities for clinically vulnerable people. Evaluating COVID-19's impact could help target support. AIM: To quantify the effect of several long-term conditions on UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare them to pre-pandemic outcomes. METHODS: The Understanding Society COVID-19 survey collected responses from around 20,000 UK residents in nine waves from April 2020-September 2021. Participants employed in January/February 2020 with a variety of long-term conditions were matched with people without the condition but with similar baseline characteristics. Models estimated probability of employment, hours worked and earnings. We compared these results with results from a two-year pre-pandemic period. We also modelled probability of furlough and home-working frequency during COVID-19. RESULTS: Most conditions (asthma, arthritis, emotional/nervous/psychiatric problems, vascular/pulmonary/liver conditions, epilepsy) were associated with reduced employment probability and/or hours worked during COVID-19, but not pre-pandemic. Furlough was more likely for people with pulmonary conditions. People with arthritis and cancer were slower to return to in-person working. Few effects were seen for earnings. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 had a disproportionate impact on people with long-term conditions' labour market outcomes.

Adapting the EQ-5D-3L for adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.5 million adults in the UK have a learning disability. The difference between age at death for this group and the general population is 26 years for females and 22 years for males. The NHS Long Term Plan (January 2019) recognises learning disabilities as a clinical priority area. People with a learning disability are often excluded from research by design or lack of reasonable adjustments, and self-reported health status/health-related quality of life questionnaires such as the EQ-5D are often not appropriate for this population. Here, we systematically examine the EQ-5D-3L (its wording, content, and format) using qualitative methods to inform the adaption of the measure for use with adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. METHODS: Think-aloud interviews with carers/advocates of learning-disabled adults were undertaken to explore the difficulties with completing the EQ-5D-3L. Alternative wording, language, structure, and images were developed using focus groups, stakeholder reference groups, and an expert panel. Data analysis followed a framework method. RESULTS: The dimensions and levels within the EQ-5D-3L were deemed appropriate for adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities. Consensus on wording, structure, and images was reached through an iterative process, and an adapted version of the EQ-5D-3L was finalised. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D-3L adapted for adults with mild to moderate intellectual/learning disabilities can facilitate measurement of self-reported health status. Research is underway to assess the potential use of the adaptation for economic evaluation.

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects. RESULTS: Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. METHODS: Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16123291 .  Registered on  28 August 2020.

Recommendations for Emerging Good Practice and Future Research in Relation to Family and Caregiver Health Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluations: A Report of the SHEER Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Omission of family and caregiver health spillovers from the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions remains common practice. When reported, a high degree of methodological inconsistency in incorporating spillovers has been observed. AIM: To promote emerging good practice, this paper from the Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluation and Research (SHEER) task force aims to provide guidance on the incorporation of family and caregiver health spillovers in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. SHEER also seeks to inform the basis for a spillover research agenda and future practice. METHODS: A modified nominal group technique was used to reach consensus on a set of recommendations, representative of the views of participating subject-matter experts. Through the structured discussions of the group, as well as on the basis of evidence identified during a review process, recommendations were proposed and voted upon, with voting being held over two rounds. RESULTS: This report describes 11 consensus recommendations for emerging good practice. SHEER advocates for the incorporation of health spillovers into analyses conducted from a healthcare/health payer perspective, and more generally inclusive perspectives such as a societal perspective. Where possible, spillovers related to displaced/foregone activities should be considered, as should the distributional consequences of inclusion. Time horizons ought to be sufficient to capture all relevant impacts. Currently, the collection of primary spillover data is preferred and clear justification should be provided when using secondary data. Transparency and consistency when reporting on the incorporation of health spillovers are crucial. In addition, given that the evidence base relating to health spillovers remains limited and requires much development, 12 avenues for future research are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of health spillovers in economic evaluations has been called for by researchers and policymakers alike. Accordingly, it is hoped that the consensus recommendations of SHEER will motivate more widespread incorporation of health spillovers into analyses. The developing nature of spillover research necessitates that this guidance be viewed as an initial roadmap, rather than a strict checklist. Moreover, there is a need for balance between consistency in approach, where valuable in a decision making context, and variation in application, to reflect differing decision maker perspectives and to support innovation.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 fundamental nursing care guideline versus usual care: The COVID-NURSE cluster randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of usual care plus a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care only for patients in hospital with COVID-19 on patient experience, care quality, functional ability, treatment outcomes, nurses' moral distress, patient health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Parallel two-arm, cluster-level randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Between 18th January and 20th December 2021, we recruited (i) adults aged 18 years and over with COVID-19, excluding those invasively ventilated, admitted for at least three days or nights in UK Hospital Trusts; (ii) nurses caring for them. We randomly assigned hospitals to use a fundamental nursing care guideline and usual care or usual care only. Our patient-reported co-primary outcomes were the Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire and four scales from the Quality from the Patient Perspective Questionnaire. We undertook intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We randomized 15 clusters and recruited 581 patient and 418 nurse participants. Primary outcome data were available for 570-572 (98.1%-98.5%) patient participants in 14 clusters. We found no evidence of between-group differences on any patient, nurse or economic outcomes. We found between-group differences over time, in favour of the intervention, for three of our five co-primary outcomes, and a significant interaction on one primary patient outcome for ethnicity (white British vs. other) and allocated group in favour of the intervention for the 'other' ethnicity subgroup. CONCLUSION: We did not detect an overall difference in patient experience for a fundamental nursing care guideline compared to usual care. We have indications the guideline may have aided sustaining good practice over time and had a more positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: We cannot recommend the wholescale implementation of our guideline into routine nursing practice. Further intervention development, feasibility, pilot and evaluation studies are required. IMPACT: Fundamental nursing care drives patient experience but is severely impacted in pandemics. Our guideline was not superior to usual care, albeit it may sustain good practice and have a positive impact on non-white British patients' experience of care. REPORTING METHOD: CONSORT and CONSERVE. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients with experience of hospitalization with COVID-19 were involved in guideline development and writing, trial management and interpretation of findings.

The economic impact of cancer diagnosis to individuals and their families: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a cancer diagnosis is wide-ranging with the potential to affect income, employment and risk of poverty. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the economic impact of a cancer diagnosis for patients and their families/caregivers. METHODS: The search covered peer-reviewed journals using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PsycINFO databases. Quality appraisal was undertaken using CASP tools. Monetary values were converted to US Dollars/2019 using a purchasing power parities (PPP) conversion factor. The review included articles up to and including January 2020, written in English language, for patients with cancer aged ≥ 18 years and focused on the costs up to 5 years following a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The search was run in January 2020 and updated in November 2021. Of the 7973 articles identified, 18 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were undertaken in the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, France, UK, Malaysia, Pakistan, China and Sri Lanka. The majority were cohort studies. Twelve reported out-of-pocket costs (range US$16-US$2523/month per patient/caregiver) consisting of medical expenses (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) and non-medical expenses (e.g. travel, food and childcare). Fourteen studies reported patient/caregiver loss of income and lost productivity (range 14-57.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of cancer patients and their families/caregivers experience out-of-pocket expenditure, loss of income and lost productivity. Future research is needed to observe the effects of continuing changes to healthcare policies and social protections on the economic burden among cancer patients and their families/caregivers.

Social care costs for community-dwelling older people living with frailty.

International evidence indicates that older people with frailty are more likely to access social care services, compared to nonfrail older people. There is, however, no robust evidence on costs of social care provided for community-dwelling older people living with frailty in their own homes. The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between community-dwelling older people living with frailty, defined using the cumulative deficit model, and annual formal social care costs for the 2012-2018 period. A secondary objective was to estimate formal social care spending for every 1% reduction in the number of older people who develop frailty over 1 year. Secondary analysis of prospective cohort data from two large nationally representative community-based cohort studies in England was performed. Respondents aged ≥75 were used in the main analysis and respondents aged 65-74 in sensitivity testing. We used regression tree modelling for formal social care cost analysis including frailty, age, gender, age at completing education and living with partner as key covariates. We employed a minimum node size stopping criteria to limit tree complexity and overfitting and applied 'bootstrap aggregating' to improve robustness. We assessed the impact of an intervention for every 1% decrease in the number of individuals who become frail over 1 year in England. Results show that frailty is the strongest predictor of formal social care costs. Mean social care costs for people who are not frail are £321, compared with £2,895 for individuals with frailty. For every 1% of nonfrail people not transitioning to frailty savings of £4.4 million in annual expenditures on formal social care in England are expected, not including expenditure on care homes. Given considerably higher costs for individuals classed as frail compared to nonfrail, a successful intervention avoiding or postponing the onset of frailty has the potential to considerably reduce social care costs.

Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older people (HERO): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multi-centre trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a home-based exercise intervention for older people with frailty as extended rehabilitation following acute illness or injury, including embedded process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed 'intermediate care' services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People's Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury. METHODS: A multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13927531 . Registered on April 19, 2017.

Fall prevention interventions in primary care to reduce fractures and falls in people aged 70 years and over: the PreFIT three-arm cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls and fractures are a major problem. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions. DESIGN: Three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel economic analysis. The unit of randomisation was the general practice. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People aged ≥ 70 years. INTERVENTIONS: All practices posted an advice leaflet to each participant. Practices randomised to active intervention arms (exercise and multifactorial falls prevention) screened participants for falls risk using a postal questionnaire. Active treatments were delivered to participants at higher risk of falling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was fracture rate over 18 months, captured from Hospital Episode Statistics, general practice records and self-report. Secondary outcomes were falls rate, health-related quality of life, mortality, frailty and health service resource use. Economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, we randomised 63 general practices (9803 participants): 21 practices (3223 participants) to advice only, 21 practices (3279 participants) to exercise and 21 practices (3301 participants) to multifactorial falls prevention. In the active intervention arms, 5779 out of 6580 (87.8%) participants responded to the postal fall risk screener, of whom 2153 (37.3%) were classed as being at higher risk of falling and invited for treatment. The rate of intervention uptake was 65% (697 out of 1079) in the exercise arm and 71% (762 out of 1074) in the multifactorial falls prevention arm. Overall, 379 out of 9803 (3.9%) participants sustained a fracture. There was no difference in the fracture rate between the advice and exercise arms (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.59) or between the advice and multifactorial falls prevention arms (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71). There was no difference in falls rate over 18 months (exercise arm: rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14; multifactorial falls prevention arm: rate ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30). A lower rate of falls was observed in the exercise arm at 8 months (rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96), but not at other time points. There were 289 (2.9%) deaths, with no differences by treatment arm. There was no evidence of effects in prespecified subgroup comparisons, nor in nested intention-to-treat analyses that considered only those at higher risk of falling. Exercise provided the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years (1.120), followed by advice and multifactorial falls prevention, with 1.106 and 1.114 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. NHS costs associated with exercise (£3720) were lower than the costs of advice (£3737) or of multifactorial falls prevention (£3941). Although incremental differences between treatment arms were small, exercise dominated advice, which in turn dominated multifactorial falls prevention. The incremental net monetary benefit of exercise relative to treatment valued at £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is modest, at £191, and for multifactorial falls prevention is £613. Exercise is the most cost-effective treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The rate of fractures was lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Screen-and-treat falls prevention strategies in primary care did not reduce fractures. Exercise resulted in a short-term reduction in falls and was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Exercise is the most promising intervention for primary care. Work is needed to ensure adequate uptake and sustained effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71002650. 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. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Falls are a major problem for older people. Current practice is to give people advice leaflets. Another approach is exercise, especially balance and strength training. A third alternative is to invite older people to attend a falls assessment with a health-care professional, either a doctor or a trained nurse. This usually involves a careful check of prescribed tablets, blood pressure, eyesight and other problems that might cause falls. WHAT DID WE DO?: We compared three strategies. We recruited 9803 people aged 70­101 years from 63 general practices across England. We randomly allocated practices in clusters into three treatment groups. The participants in one group were given a Staying Steady advice leaflet (Age UK. Staying Steady. London: Age UK; 2009). Participants in the second group received the same leaflet and were assessed to see if they were at higher risk of falling. Those participants identified as being at higher risk (about 1000 people) were invited to take part in an exercise programme, supported by an exercise therapist. These people did balance and strength training at home for up to 6 months. In the third group, we again identified participants who were at higher risk of falling (about 1000 people) and invited them for a detailed falls assessment with a trained nurse or doctor. This last group of participants were referred for other treatments if any health problems were found. In all groups we counted fractures and falls and measured changes in quality of life, frailty and the cost of the treatments over 18 months of follow-up. WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?: We found no difference in the number of fractures over 18 months between the different treatments. The exercise programme reduced falls in the short term but not over the longer term. The exercise programme was cheaper and led to a slightly better overall quality of life.

Frailty and socioeconomic status: a systematic review.

The relationship between frailty and socioeconomic status has been widely explored in the literature. A deeper understanding toward the underlying mechanism is required to further assist policy makers in reducing the inequalities. The objective of this study is to systematically review evidence investigating the direct relationship between frailty and socioeconomic status. The review was conducted following the principles of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Among the included studies, 52.38% explored the pattern of frailty in age and 42.86% explored mediators as the pathway variables. With various measures and methodologies, included studies did not point to the same conclusions. In terms of the pattern of frailty in age, we found evidence for the age as leveller hypothesis, the status maintenance hypothesis and the cumulative advantage hypothesis. The included mediators differed across studies. However, we found that these mediators can be categorised into behaviours, health, social factors, material resources and mental status. These categories indicate the important aspects to consider for policies aiming at reducing the inequalities in frailty. To obtain a full picture of the underlying mechanism, future research should harmonise different measures for frailty and socioeconomic indicators and apply more comprehensive sets of mediators.

Sacral nerve stimulation versus the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for adult faecal incontinence: the SaFaRI RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies using the FENIX™ (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) magnetic sphincter augmentation device suggest that it is safe to use for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence, but efficacy data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence in terms of safety, efficacy, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicentre, parallel-group, unblinded, randomised trial comparing FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation in participants suffering moderate to severe faecal incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised on an equal basis to either sacral nerve stimulation or FENIX. Follow-up occurred 2 weeks postoperatively and at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was success, defined as device in use and ≥ 50% improvement in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Between 30 October 2014 and 23 March 2017, 99 participants were randomised across 18 NHS sites (50 participants to FENIX vs. 49 participants to sacral nerve stimulation). The median time from randomisation to FENIX implantation was 57.0 days (range 4.0-416.0 days), and the median time from randomisation to permanent sacral nerve stimulation was 371.0 days (range 86.0-918.0 days). A total of 45 out of 50 participants underwent FENIX implantation and 29 out of 49 participants continued to permanent sacral nerve stimulation. The following results are reported, excluding participants for whom the corresponding outcome was not evaluable. Overall, there was success for 10 out of 80 (12.5%) participants, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups [FENIX 6/41 (14.6%) participants vs. sacral nerve stimulation 4/39 (10.3%) participants]. At least one postoperative complication was experienced by 33 out of 45 (73.3%) participants in the FENIX group and 9 out of 40 (22.5%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group. A total of 15 out of 50 (30%) participants in the FENIX group ultimately had to have their device explanted. Slightly higher costs and quality-adjusted life-years (incremental = £305.50 and 0.005, respectively) were observed in the FENIX group than in the sacral nerve stimulation group. This was reversed over the lifetime horizon (incremental = -£1306 and -0.23 for costs and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively), when sacral nerve stimulation was the optimal option (net monetary benefit = -£3283), with only a 45% chance of FENIX being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SaFaRI study was terminated in 2017, having recruited 99 participants of the target sample size of 350 participants. The study is, therefore, substantially underpowered to detect differences between the treatment groups, with significant uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The SaFaRI study revealed inefficiencies in the treatment pathways for faecal incontinence, particularly for sacral nerve stimulation. The success of both FENIX and sacral nerve stimulation was much lower than previously reported, with high postoperative morbidity in the FENIX group. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to clarify the treatment pathways for sacral nerve stimulation and to determine its true clinical and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16077538. 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. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Faecal incontinence is a distressing condition for patients, and surgery is recommended if symptoms are having an effect on quality of life. One of the treatments recommended for faecal incontinence by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is sacral nerve stimulation, which aims to improve continence by stimulating the nerves to the back passage. A newer treatment involves surgery to implant a string of magnetic beads around the anal canal using the FENIX™ device (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The aim of this study was to assess the benefits and risks of the FENIX device compared with sacral nerve stimulation. The SaFaRI study aimed to recruit 350 participants with faecal incontinence, but was stopped early because of the manufacturer withdrawing the FENIX device for strategic reasons. In total, we recruited 99 participants. Fifty participants were allocated to receive the FENIX device and 49 participants were allocated to receive sacral nerve stimulation. The observed success rates with both devices were low: at 18 months following their entry into the study, 6 out of 41 (14.6%) participants in the FENIX group and 4 out of 39 (10.3%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group had the device both in use and producing a benefit. A total of 5 out of 50 (10.0%) participants allocated to receive the FENIX device did not have a device implanted, and 15 out of 45 (33.3%) participants who did have the FENIX device implanted needed to have it removed because of complications during the 18-month follow-up period. A total of 21 out of 49 (42.9%) participants allocated to receive sacral nerve stimulation did not have a permanent sacral nerve stimulation device implanted, and 0 of the 28 who did have a permanent sacral nerve stimulation device implanted needed to have it removed during the 18-month follow-up period. The costs associated with the FENIX device were higher because of a greater number of participants experiencing complications, meaning that the FENIX device is unlikely to be cost-effective in the treatment of faecal incontinence compared with sacral nerve stimulation.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-effectiveness of the Surgisis Anal Fistula Plug Versus Surgeon's Preference for Transsphincteric Fistula-in-Ano: The FIAT Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a randomized comparison of the Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug against surgeon's preference in treating cryptoglandular transsphincteric fistula-in-ano. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of the Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug in healing anal fistulae is uncertain. METHODS: Participants were randomized to the fistula plug with surgeon's preference (advancement flap, cutting seton, fistulotomy, Ligation of the Intersphincteric Fistula Tract procedure). The primary outcome was faecal incontinence quality of life (FIQoL) at 12-months. Secondary outcomes were fistula healing, incontinence rates, and complication and reintervention rates. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and March 2016, 304 participants were randomized to fistula plug or surgeon's preference. No differences were seen in FIQoL between the 2 groups at 12 months. Clinical fistula healing was reported in 66/122 (54%) of the fistula plug and 66/119 (55%) of the surgeon's preference groups at 12 months. Fecal incontinence rates improved marginally in both the groups. Complications and reinterventions were frequent, with significantly more complications in the fistula plug group at 6-weeks (49/142, 35% vs 25/137, 18%; P=0.002). The mean total costs were £2738 (s.d. £1151) for the fistula plug and £2308 (s.d. £1228) for the surgeon's preference group (mean difference +£430, P=0.0174). The average total quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was marginally higher in the fistula plug group. The fistula plug was 35% to 45% likely to be cost-effective across a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 / QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The Biodesign Surgisis anal fistula plug is associated with similar FIQoL and healing rates to surgeon's preference at 12 months. Higher costs and highly uncertain gains in QALYs mean that the fistula plug may not be considered as a cost-effective treatment in the UK NHS.

Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in Hong Kong. METHODS: A within trial cost-utility analysis with the primary endpoint for the economic evaluation being the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and associated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) over 14 weeks of treatment. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken with the endpoint being change in pain as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were randomised to acupuncture or usual care. Acupuncture resulted in significant improvements in pain intensity (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.8 and -1.8, respectively), pain interference (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.5 and -0.9, respectively) and indicators of quality of life and neurotoxicity-related symptoms. However, in the economic evaluation there was little difference in QALYs between the two arms (mean change 0.209 and 0.200 in the acupuncture and usual care arms, respectively). Also, costs yielded deterministic ICERs of HK$616,965.62, HK$824,083.44 and HK$540,727.56 per QALY gained from the health care provider perspective, the societal perspective and the patient perspective, respectively. These costs are significantly higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold of HK$180,450 that was used for the base case analysis. CONCLUSION: While acupuncture can improve symptoms and quality of life indicators related to CIPN, it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for CIPN-related pain in health care systems with limited resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02553863 (ClinicalTrials.gov) post-results.

Swab-yourself Trial With Economic Monitoring and Testing for Infections Collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 1. A Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness Study Comparing Clinician-taken vs Self-taken Rectal and Pharyngeal Samples for the Diagnosis of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia.

BACKGROUND: Urogenital testing misses extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Extragenital self-sampling is frequently undertaken despite no robust randomized, controlled trial evidence of efficacy. We compared clinician-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples with self-taken samples for diagnostic accuracy and cost in men who have sex with men (MSM) and in females. METHODS: This was a prospective convenience sample from a UK sexual health clinic. We randomized the order of clinician- and self-taken samples from the pharynx and rectum, plus first catch urine (MSM) and vulvovaginal swabs (females), for NG/CT detection. RESULTS: Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 9.4% infected females and 67.3% MSM were urogenital-negative. A total of 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx); 13.1% infected females and 71.8% MSM were urogenital-negative. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between clinician- and self-taken samples from the rectum or pharynx. Clinicians took swabs more quickly than participants, so costs were lower. However, in asymptomatic people, nonqualified clinicians would oversee self-swabbing making these costs lower. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the diagnostic accuracy of clinician-taken compared with self-taken extragenital samples. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections, so individuals should have extragenital clinician- or self-taken samples. Clinician-taken swabs cost less than self-taken swabs; however, in asymptomatic people or those who perform home testing, the costs would be lower than for clinician-taken swabs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02371109.

Swab-Yourself Trial With Economic Monitoring and Testing for Infections Collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 2. A Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness Study Comparing Rectal, Pharyngeal, and Urogenital Samples Analyzed Individually, Versus as a Pooled Specimen, for the Diagnosis of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia.

BACKGROUND: Sexual history does not accurately identify those with extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), so universal extragenital sampling is recommended. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are expensive. If urogenital, plus rectal and pharyngeal, samples are analyzed, the diagnostic cost is trebled. Pooling samples into 1 NAAT container would cost the same as urogenital samples alone. We compared clinician triple samples analyzed individually with self-taken pooled samples for diagnostic accuracy, and cost, in men who have sex with men (MSM) and females. METHODS: This was a prospective, convenience sample in United Kingdom sexual health clinic. Randomized order of clinician and self-samples from pharynx, rectum, plus first-catch urine (FCU) in MSM and vulvovaginal swabs (VVS) in females, for NG and CT detection. RESULTS: Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx). There was no difference in sensitivities between clinician triple samples and self-pooled specimens for NG (99.1% and 98.3%), but clinician samples analyzed individually identified 3% more chlamydia infections than pooled (99.3% and 96.0%; P = .027). However, pooled specimens identified more infections than VVS/FCU alone. Pooled specimens missed 2 NG and 11 CT infections, whereas VVS/FCU missed 41 NG and 58 CT infections. Self-taken pooled specimens were the most cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: FCU/VVS testing alone missed many infections. Self-taken pooled samples were as sensitive as clinician triple samples for identifying NG, but clinician samples analyzed individually identified 3% more CT infections than pooled. The extragenital sampling was achievable at no additional diagnostic cost to the FCU/VVS. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02371109.

Screening and Intervention to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Older People.

BACKGROUND: Community screening and therapeutic prevention strategies may reduce the incidence of falls in older people. The effects of these measures on the incidence of fractures, the use of health resources, and health-related quality of life are unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, three-group, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, we estimated the effect of advice sent by mail, risk screening for falls, and targeted interventions (multifactorial fall prevention or exercise for people at increased risk for falls) as compared with advice by mail only. The primary outcome was the rate of fractures per 100 person-years over 18 months. Secondary outcomes were falls, health-related quality of life, frailty, and a parallel economic evaluation. RESULTS: We randomly selected 9803 persons 70 years of age or older from 63 general practices across England: 3223 were assigned to advice by mail alone, 3279 to falls-risk screening and targeted exercise in addition to advice by mail, and 3301 to falls-risk screening and targeted multifactorial fall prevention in addition to advice by mail. A falls-risk screening questionnaire was sent to persons assigned to the exercise and multifactorial fall-prevention groups. Completed screening questionnaires were returned by 2925 of the 3279 participants (89%) in the exercise group and by 2854 of the 3301 participants (87%) in the multifactorial fall-prevention group. Of the 5779 participants from both these groups who returned questionnaires, 2153 (37%) were considered to be at increased risk for falls and were invited to receive the intervention. Fracture data were available for 9802 of the 9803 participants. Screening and targeted intervention did not result in lower fracture rates; the rate ratio for fracture with exercise as compared with advice by mail was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.59), and the rate ratio with multifactorial fall prevention as compared with advice by mail was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71). The exercise strategy was associated with small gains in health-related quality of life and the lowest overall costs. There were three adverse events (one episode of angina, one fall during a multifactorial fall-prevention assessment, and one hip fracture) during the trial period. CONCLUSIONS: Advice by mail, screening for fall risk, and a targeted exercise or multifactorial intervention to prevent falls did not result in fewer fractures than advice by mail alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN71002650.).

Six versus 12 months' adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: the PERSEPHONE non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: The addition of adjuvant trastuzumab to chemotherapy has significantly improved outcomes for people with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, early, potentially curable breast cancer. Twelve months' trastuzumab, tested in registration trials, was adopted as standard adjuvant treatment in 2006. Subsequently, similar outcomes were demonstrated using 9 weeks of trastuzumab. Shorter durations were therefore tested for non-inferiority. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether or not 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months' in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer using a primary end point of 4-year disease-free survival. DESIGN: This was a Phase III randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: The setting was 152 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4088 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who it was planned would receive both chemotherapy and trastuzumab took part. INTERVENTION: Randomisation (1 : 1) to 6 months' or 12 months' trastuzumab treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. The secondary end points were overall survival, cost-effectiveness and cardiac function during treatment with trastuzumab. Assuming a 4-year disease-free survival rate of 80% with 12 months' trastuzumab, 4000 patients were required to demonstrate non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab (5% one-sided significance, 85% power), defining the non-inferiority limit as no worse than 3% below the standard arm. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using a within-trial analysis and a lifetime decision-analytic model. RESULTS: Between 4 October 2007 and 31 July 2015, 2045 patients were randomised to 12 months' trastuzumab and 2043 were randomised to 6 months' trastuzumab. Sixty-nine per cent of patients had ER-positive disease; 90% received anthracyclines (49% with taxanes; 41% without taxanes); 10% received taxanes without anthracyclines; 54% received trastuzumab sequentially after chemotherapy; and 85% received adjuvant chemotherapy (58% were node negative). At 6.1 years' median follow-up, with 389 (10%) deaths and 566 (14%) disease-free survival events, the 4-year disease-free survival rates for the 4088 patients were 89.5% (95% confidence interval 88.1% to 90.8%) in the 6-month group and 90.3% (95% confidence interval 88.9% to 91.5%) in the 12-month group (hazard ratio 1.10, 90% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.26; non-inferiority p = 0.01), demonstrating non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab. Congruent results were found for overall survival (non-inferiority p = 0.0003) and landmark analyses 6 months from starting trastuzumab [non-inferiority p = 0.03 (disease-free-survival) and p = 0.006 (overall survival)]. Six months' trastuzumab resulted in fewer patients reporting adverse events of severe grade [365/1929 (19%) vs. 460/1935 (24%) for 12-month patients; p = 0.0003] or stopping early because of cardiotoxicity [61/1977 (3%) vs. 146/1941 (8%) for 12-month patients; p < 0.0001]. Health economic analysis showed that 6 months' trastuzumab resulted in significantly lower lifetime costs than and similar lifetime quality-adjusted life-years to 12 months' trastuzumab, and thus there is a high probability that 6 months' trastuzumab is cost-effective compared with 12 months' trastuzumab. Patient-reported experiences in the trial highlighted fatigue and aches and pains most frequently. LIMITATIONS: The type of chemotherapy and timing of trastuzumab changed during the recruitment phase of the study as standard practice altered. CONCLUSIONS: PERSEPHONE demonstrated that, in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer, 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months'. Six months' treatment resulted in significantly less cardiac toxicity and fewer severe adverse events. FUTURE WORK: Ongoing translational work investigates patient and tumour genetic determinants of toxicity, and trastuzumab efficacy. An individual patient data meta-analysis with PHARE and other trastuzumab duration trials is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52968807, EudraCT 2006-007018-39 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00712140. 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. 24, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

THE BACKGROUND: There are several different types of breast cancer and some are called 'HER2 positive'. These cancers can often be cured by treatment with chemotherapy and a drug called trastuzumab (also known as Herceptin®; Roche, Basel, Switzerland). Although the first trials of trastuzumab used 12 months treatment, we did not know if less treatment could work as well. A small trial in Finland showed that giving trastuzumab for just 9 weeks was also effective. We know that trastuzumab can have some side effects, including heart problems, so it was important to see if we could reduce the length of treatment time, which is usually 12 months. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to find out if we could treat patients safely with 6 months rather than 12 months of trastuzumab. We carried out a clinical trial called PERSEPHONE, in which over 4000 patients with this type of early breast cancer took part. Half of the patients were given 12 months of trastuzumab and half were given 6 months of trastuzumab. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that the two groups of patients had very similar benefit from treatment. At 4 years after diagnosis 90.3% of those who had received 12 months of trastuzumab were alive and free of any breast cancer recurrence, compared with 89.5% of those who had received 6 months. In other words, 125 patients would need to be treated with 12 months' trastuzumab rather than 6 months' trastuzumab for one more person to be alive and cancer-free 4 years from diagnosis. THE SIDE EFFECTS?: Severe side effects of trastuzumab were seen on at least one occasion in 24% of 12-month patients compared with 19% of 6-month patients. More patients receiving 12 months of trastuzumab had to stop trastuzumab early because of heart problems (8% of 12-month patients compared with 3% of 6-month patients). WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?: We have shown that 6 months of trastuzumab has similar outcomes to 12 months in treating patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer but with fewer severe side effects, including heart problems, fewer visits to hospital for patients and significant cost savings for the NHS.

Normative Estimates and Agreement Between 2 Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life in Older People With Frailty: Findings From the Community Ageing Research 75+ Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have summarized evidence on health-related quality of life for older people, identifying a range of measures that have been validated, but have not sought to present results by degree of frailty. Furthermore, previous studies did not typically use quality-of-life measures that generate an overall health utility score. Health utility scores are a necessary component of quality-adjusted life-year calculations used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: We calculated normative estimates in mean and standard deviation for EQ-5D-5L, short-form 36-item health questionnaire in frailty (SF-36), and short-form 6-dimension (SF-6D) for a range of established frailty models. We compared response distributions across dimensions of the measures and investigated agreement using Bland-Altman and interclass correlation techniques. RESULTS: The EQ-5D-5L, SF-36, and SF-6D scores decrease and their variability increases with advancing frailty. There is strong agreement between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D across the spectrum of frailty. Agreement is lower for people who are most frail, indicating that different components of the 2 instruments may have greater relevance for people with advancing frailty in later life. There is a greater risk of ceiling effects using the EQ-5D-5L rather than the SF-6D. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the SF-36/SF-6D as an appropriate measure of health-related quality of life for clinical trials if fit older people are the planned target. In trials of interventions involving older people with increasing frailty, we recommend that both the EQ-5D-5L and SF36/SF6D are included, and are used in sensitivity analyses as part of cost-effectiveness evaluation.

Equity and the financial costs of informal caregiving in palliative care: a critical debate.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers represent the foundation of the palliative care workforce and are the main providers of end of life care. Financial pressures are among the most serious concerns for many carers and the financial burden of end of life caregiving can be substantial. METHODS: The aim of this critical debate paper was to review and critique some of the key evidence on the financial costs of informal caregiving and describe how these costs represent an equity issue in palliative care. RESULTS: The financial costs of informal caregiving at the end of life can be significant and include carer time costs, out of pocket costs and employment related costs. Financial burden is associated with a range of negative outcomes for both patient and carer. Evidence suggests that the financial costs of caring are not distributed equitably. Sources of inequity are reflective of those influencing access to specialist palliative care and include diagnosis (cancer vs non-cancer), socio-economic status, gender, cultural and ethnic identity, and employment status. Effects of intersectionality and the cumulative effect of multiple risk factors are also a consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Various groups of informal end of life carers are systematically disadvantaged financially. Addressing these, and other, determinants of end of life care is central to a public health approach to palliative care that fully recognises the value of carers. Further research exploring these areas of inequity in more depth and gaining a more detailed understanding of what influences financial burden is required to take the next steps towards meeting this aspiration. We will address the conclusions and recommendations we have made in this paper through the work of our recently established European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Taskforce on the financial costs of family caregiving.