Cognitive therapy for depression in tuberculosis treatment: protocol for multicentre pragmatic parallel arm randomised control trial with an internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is an unmet need to develop high-quality evidence addressing tuberculosis (TB)-related mental health comorbidity, particularly in the context of lower-middle-income countries. This study aims to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) in improving depressive symptoms in people with TB and comorbid depression, enhancing adherence with anti-TB treatment (ATT) and its implementation in the real-world setting of Pakistan. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic parallel arm randomised control trial with an internal pilot. A brief psychological intervention based on CBT has been developed using a combination of qualitative and ethnographic studies. The inbuilt pilot trial will have a sample size of 80, while we plan to recruit 560 (280 per arm) participants in the definitive trial. Participants who started on ATT within 1 month of diagnosis for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB or multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB) and meeting the criteria for depression on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) will be randomised with 1:1 allocation to receive six sessions of CBT (delivered by TB healthcare workers) or ETAU. Data on the feasibility outcomes of the pilot will be considered to proceed with the definitive trial. Participants will be assessed (by a blinded assessor) for the following main trial primary outcomes: (1) severity of depression using PHQ-9 scale (interviewer-administered questionnaire) at baseline, weeks 8, 24 and 32 postrandomisation and (2) ATT at baseline and week 24 at the end of ATT therapy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from Keele University Research Ethics Committee (ref: 2023-0599-792), Khyber Medical University Ethical Review Board (ref: DIR/KMU-EB/CT/000990) and National Bioethics Committee Pakistan (ref: No.4-87/NBC-998/23/587). The results of this study will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences and disseminated to stakeholders and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10761003.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

Comparison of health-care utilization, costs and health-related quality of life across the subgroups defined by the Keele STarT MSK Tool.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe and compare health economic outcomes [health-care utilization and costs, work outcomes, and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L)] in patients classified into different levels-of-risk subgroups by the Keele STarT MSK Tool. METHODS: Data on health-care utilization, costs and EQ-5D-5L were collected from a health-care perspective within a primary care prospective observational cohort study. Patients presenting with one (or more) of the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations were included: back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain. Participants at low, medium and high risk of persistent disabling pain were compared in relation to mean health-care utilization and costs, health-related quality of life, and employment status. Regression analysis was used to estimate costs. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the mean (s.d.) total health-care (National Health Service and private) costs associated with the low, medium, and high-risk subgroups were £132.92 (167.88), £279.32 (462.98) and £476.07 (716.44), respectively. Mean health-related quality of life over the 6-month period was lower and more people changed their employment status in the high-risk subgroup compared with the medium- and low-risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subgroups of people with different levels of risk for poor musculoskeletal pain outcomes also have different levels of health-care utilization, health-care costs, health-related quality of life, and work outcomes. The findings show that the STarT MSK Tool not only identifies those at risk of a poorer outcome, but also those who will have more health-care visits and incur higher costs.

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

The STarT Back stratified care model for nonspecific low back pain: a model-based evaluation of long-term cost-effectiveness.

ABSTRACT: The STarT Back approach comprises subgrouping patients with low back pain (LBP) according to the risk of persistent LBP-related disability, with appropriate matched treatments. In a 12-month clinical trial and implementation study, this stratified care approach was clinically and cost-effective compared with usual, nonstratified care. Despite the chronic nature of LBP and associated economic burden, model-based economic evaluations in LBP are rare and have shortcomings. This study therefore produces a de novo decision model of this stratified care approach for LBP management to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness and address methodological concerns in LBP modelling. A cost-utility analysis from the National Health Service perspective compared stratified care with usual care in patients consulting in primary care with nonspecific LBP. A Markov state-transition model was constructed where patient prognosis over 10 years was dependent on physical function achieved at 12 months. Data from the clinical trial and implementation study provided short-term model parameters, with extrapolation using 2 cohort studies of usual care in LBP. Base-case results indicate this model of stratified care is cost-effective, delivering 0.14 additional quality-adjusted life years at a cost saving of £135.19 per patient over a time horizon of 10 years. Sensitivity analyses indicate the approach is likely to be cost-effective in all scenarios and cost saving in most. It is likely this stratified care model will help reduce unnecessary healthcare usage while improving the patient's quality of life. Although decision-analytic modelling is used in many conditions, its use has been underexplored in LBP, and this study also addresses associated methodological challenges.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. DESIGN: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. FUTURE WORK: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. 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. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sciatica is pain that spreads into the leg because of a trapped nerve in the lower back. It can be a very painful condition that affects everyday life and ability to work. People with sciatica usually see their general practitioner first; if they do not get better over time, they may be referred to a physiotherapist or, eventually, to a spinal specialist. It is difficult to know which sciatica patient will do well without much treatment and who might need to see a physiotherapist or spinal specialist sooner. Stratified care is an approach aiming to help decide, early on, which patients need to see which health professionals. It has previously been shown to be helpful for patients with lower-back pain. In a trial of 476 patients with sciatica a stratified care model was tested to see if it led to faster improvements in sciatica-related leg pain, when compared with usual care. Adults seeing their general practitioner with sciatica were invited to attend a research clinic. Those willing to take part were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care. Patients in the stratified care arm were referred either to physiotherapy for a short or a longer course of treatment, or to undergo magnetic resonance imaging and see a spinal specialist with the magnetic resonance imaging results within 4 weeks. Pain, function and quality-of-life data were collected over 12 months using text messages and questionnaires. Although patients in the stratified care arm improved slightly more quickly (2 weeks, on average), we did not find convincing evidence that stratified care led to better results than usual care. On average, most patients in both trial arms improved in a similar way over 12 months. The stratified care model tested in this trial did not lead to faster recovery for patients with sciatica than usual care.

Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care. METHODS: We did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care. INTERPRETATION: The stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Supervised treatment in outpatients for schizophrenia plus (STOPS+): protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a community-based intervention to improve treatment adherence and reduce the treatment gap for schizophrenia in Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION: There is a significant treatment gap, with only a few community-based services for people with schizophrenia in low-income and middle-income countries. Poor treatment adherence in schizophrenia is associated with poorer health outcomes, suicide attempts and death. We previously reported the effectiveness of supervised treatment in outpatients for schizophrenia (STOPS) for improving treatment adherence in patients with schizophrenia. However, STOPS was evaluated in a tertiary care setting with no primary care involvement, limiting its generalisability to the wider at-risk population. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of STOPS+ in scaling up the primary care treatment of schizophrenia to a real-world setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The effectiveness of the STOPS+ intervention in improving the level of functioning and medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia in Pakistan will be evaluated using a cluster randomised controlled trial design. We aim to recruit 526 participants from 24 primary healthcare centres randomly allocated in 1:1 ratio to STOPS+ intervention and enhanced treatment as usual arms. Participants will be followed-up for 12 months postrecruitment. The sample size is estimated for two outcomes (1) the primary clinical outcome is level of functioning, measured using the Global Assessment of Functioning scale and (2) the primary process outcome is adherence to treatment regimen measured using a validated measure. An intention-to-treat approach will be used for the primary analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from Keele University Ethical Review Panel (ref: MH-190017) and Khyber Medical University Ethical Review Board (ref: DIR-KMU-EB/ST/000648). The results of the STOPS+ trial will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences and disseminated to local stakeholders and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93243890.

Computer-Based Stratified Primary Care for Musculoskeletal Consultations Compared With Usual Care: Study Protocol for the STarT MSK Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a major cause of pain and disability. We previously developed a prognostic tool (Start Back Tool) with demonstrated effectiveness in guiding primary care low back pain management by supporting decision making using matched treatments. A logical next step is to determine whether prognostic stratified care has benefits for a broader range of common MSK pain presentations. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to determine, in patients with 1 of the 5 most common MSK presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multisite pain), whether stratified care involving the use of the Keele Start MSK Tool to allocate individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, and matching these subgroups to recommended matched clinical management options, is clinical and cost-effective compared with usual nonstratified primary care. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm parallel (stratified vs nonstratified care), cluster randomized controlled trial, with a health economic analysis and mixed methods process evaluation. The setting is UK primary care, involving 24 average-sized general practices randomized (stratified by practice size) in a 1:1 ratio (12 per arm) with blinding of trial statistician and outcome data collectors. Randomization units are general practices, and units of observation are adult MSK consulters without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records are tagged and individuals invited using a general practitioner (GP) point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention is supported by an EMR template (computer-based) housing the Keele Start MSK Tool (to stratify into prognostic subgroups) and the recommended matched treatment options. The primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis is pain intensity, measured monthly over 6 months. Secondary outcomes include physical function and quality of life, and an anonymized EMR audit to capture clinician decision making. The economic evaluation is focused on the estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life years and MSK pain-related health care costs. The process evaluation is exploring a range of potential factors influencing the intervention and understanding how it is perceived by patients and clinicians, with quantitative analyses focusing on a priori hypothesized intervention targets and qualitative approaches using focus groups and interviews. The target sample size is 1200 patients from 24 general practices, with >5000 MSK consultations available for anonymized medical record data comparisons. RESULTS: Trial recruitment commenced on May 18, 2018, and ended on July 15, 2019, after a 14-month recruitment period in 24 GP practices. Follow-up and interview data collection was completed in February 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is the first attempt, as far as we know, at testing a prognostic stratified care approach for primary care patients with MSK pain. The results of this trial should be available by the summer of 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15366334; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15366334. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17939.

Costing Methodology and Key Drivers of Health Care Costs Within Economic Analyses in Musculoskeletal Community and Primary Care Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Background: Identifying variation in musculoskeletal service costs requires the use of specific standardized metrics. There has been a large focus on costing, efficiency, and standardized metrics within the acute musculoskeletal setting, but far less attention in primary care and community settings. Objectives: To (a) assess the quality of costing methods used within musculoskeletal economic analyses based primarily in primary and community settings and (b) identify which cost variables are the key drivers of musculoskeletal health care costs within these settings. Methods: Medline, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC, BNI, and HBE electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality of costing methods using an established checklist. Results: Twenty-two studies met the review inclusion criteria. The majority of studies demonstrated moderate- to high-quality costing methods. Costing issues included studies failing to fully justify the economic perspective, and not distinguishing between short- and long-run costs. Highest unit costs were hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and imaging. Highest mean utilization were the following: general practitioner (GP) visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Highest mean costs per patient were GP visits, outpatient visits, and physiotherapy visits. Conclusion: This review identified a number of key resource use variables that are driving musculoskeletal health care costs in the community/primary care setting. High utilization of these resources (rather than high unit cost) appears to be the predominant factor increasing mean health care costs. There is, however, need for greater detail with capturing these key cost drivers, to further improve the accuracy of costing information.

Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and sciatica place significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems, with societal costs alone likely to be in excess of £15 billion. Two recent systematic reviews for LBP and sciatica identified a shortage of modelling studies in both conditions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to document existing model-based economic evaluations for the treatment and management of both conditions; critically appraise current modelling techniques, analytical methods, data inputs, and structure, using narrative synthesis; and identify unresolved methodological problems and gaps in the literature. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted whereby 6512 records were extracted from 11 databases, with no date limits imposed. Studies were abstracted according to a predesigned protocol, whereby they must be economic evaluations that employed an economic decision model and considered any management approach for LBP and sciatica. Study abstraction was initially performed by one reviewer who removed duplicates and screened titles to remove irrelevant studies. Overall, 133 potential studies for inclusion were then screened independently by other reviewers. Consensus was reached between reviewers regarding final inclusion. RESULTS: Twenty-one publications of 20 unique models were included in the review, five of which were modelling studies in LBP and 16 in sciatica. Results revealed a poor standard of modelling in both conditions, particularly regarding modelling techniques, analytical methods, and data quality. Specific issues relate to inappropriate representation of both conditions in terms of health states, insufficient time horizons, and use of inappropriate utility values. CONCLUSION: High-quality modelling studies, which reflect modelling best practice, as well as contemporary clinical understandings of both conditions, are required to enhance the economic evidence for treatments for both conditions.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis is limited and conflicting. The primary objective of the Hip Injection Trial (HIT) is to compare pain intensity over 6 months, in people with hip OA between those receiving an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride plus best current treatment with those receiving best current treatment alone. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and to explore, in a linked qualitative study, the lived experiences of patients with hip OA and experiences and impact of, ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection. METHODS: The HIT trial is a pragmatic, three-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial in patients with painful hip OA with a linked qualitative study. The current protocol is described, in addition to details and rationale for amendments since trial registration. 204 patients with moderate-to-severe hip OA will be recruited. Participants are randomised on an equal basis (1:1:1 ratio) to one of three interventions: (1) best current treatment, (2) best current treatment plus ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg) with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or (3) best current treatment plus an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride alone. The primary endpoint is patient-reported hip pain intensity across 2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Recruitment is over 29 months with a 6-month follow-up period. To address the primary objective, the analysis will compare participants' 'average' follow-up pain NRS scores, based on a random effects linear repeated-measures model. Data on adverse events are collected and reported in accordance with national guidance and reviewed by external monitoring committees. Individual semi-structured interviews are being conducted with up to 30 trial participants across all three arms of the trial. DISCUSSION: To ensure healthcare services improve outcomes for patients, we need to ensure there is a robust and appropriate evidence-base to support clinical decision making. The HIT trial will answer important questions regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 50550256 , 28th July 2015.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial-based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting for OA compared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12-month period from a UK National Health Service and societal perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves controlling for cluster-level data were constructed. The base-case analysis used the net benefit regressions approach. The 2-stage nonparametric sampling technique was explored in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The base-case analysis demonstrated that the intervention was as costly as, and less effective than, the control (QALY differential -0.029 [95% confidence interval -0.062, 0.003]). In the base-case analyses, general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression was unlikely to be a cost-effective option (probability <5% at £20,000/QALY). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Prompting general practitioners to routinely screen and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with OA is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to explore clinically effective and cost-effective models of managing anxiety and depression in patients presenting with clinical OA.

Cost-effectiveness of a model consultation to support self-management in patients with osteoarthritis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a model OA consultation for OA to support self-management compared with usual care. Methods: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the three-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire was undertaken from a UK National Health Service perspective alongside a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Differences in health outcomes between the model OA consultation and usual care arms were not statistically significant. On average, visits to the orthopaedic surgeon were lower in the model OA consultation arm by -0.28 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.06). The cost-utility analysis indicated that the model OA consultation was associated with a non-significant incremental cost of £-13.11 (95% CI: -81.09 to 54.85) and an incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) of -0.003 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02), with a 44% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. The percentage of participants who took time off and the associated productivity cost were lower in the model OA consultation arm. Conclusion: Implementing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines using a model OA consultation in primary care does not appear to lead to increased costs, but health outcomes remain very similar to usual care. Even though the intervention seems to reduce the demand for orthopaedic surgery, overall it is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Effectiveness and costs of a vocational advice service to improve work outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a cluster randomised trial (SWAP trial ISRCTN 52269669).

Musculoskeletal pain is a common cause of work absence, and early intervention is advocated to prevent the adverse health and economic consequences of longer-term absence. This cluster randomised controlled trial investigated the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into primary care to provide occupational support. Six general practices were randomised; patients were eligible if they were consulting their general practitioner with musculoskeletal pain and were employed and struggling at work or absent from work <6 months. Practices in the intervention arm could refer patients to a vocational advisor embedded within the practice providing a case-managed stepwise intervention addressing obstacles to working. The primary outcome was number of days off work, over 4 months. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 158) had fewer days work absence compared with the control arm (n = 180) (mean 9.3 [SD 21·7] vs 14·4 [SD 27·7]) days, incidence rate ratio 0·51 (95% confidence interval 0·26, 0·99), P = 0·048). The net societal benefit of the intervention compared with best care was £733: £748 gain (work absence) vs £15 loss (health care costs). The addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients consulting with musculoskeletal pain led to reduced absence and cost savings for society. If a similar early intervention to the one tested in this trial was implemented widely, it could potentially reduce days absent over 12 months by 16%, equating to an overall societal cost saving of approximately £500 million (US $6 billion) and requiring an investment of only £10 million.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581).

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Valuing productivity costs using the friction-cost approach: Estimating friction-period estimates by occupational classifications for the UK.

The friction cost approach has been proposed as an alternative to the human capital approach in estimating productivity costs. However, it is difficult, in practice, to apply this approach due to limited availability of context-specific data. Using national and firm-level data on vacancy durations sourced from 4 organisations, we estimated vacancy durations, and consequently, length of friction period for the United Kingdom disaggregated by occupational classification. We found comparable estimates to previously reported friction periods elsewhere. The disaggregated friction period analysis confirmed occupational class has an effect on the estimated length of the friction period. The research presents estimates on vacancy durations and friction periods necessary to use the friction cost approach in a practical way in economic evaluations.

The Estimation and Inclusion of Presenteeism Costs in Applied Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Given the significant costs of reduced productivity (presenteeism) in comparison to absenteeism, and overall societal costs, presenteeism has a potentially important role to play in economic evaluations. However, these costs are often excluded. The objective of this study is to review applied cost of illness studies and economic evaluations to identify valuation methods used for, and impact of including presenteeism costs in practice. METHODS: A structured systematic review was carried out to explore (i) the extent to which presenteeism has been applied in cost of illness studies and economic evaluations and (ii) the overall impact of including presenteeism on overall costs and outcomes. Potential articles were identified by searching Medline, PsycINFO and NHS EED databases. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from economic evaluations and cost of illness studies incorporating presenteeism costs. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review which also demonstrated that presenteeism costs are rarely included in full economic evaluations. Estimation and monetisation methods differed between the instruments. The impact of disease on presenteeism whilst in paid work is high. CONCLUSIONS: The potential impact of presenteeism costs needs to be highlighted and greater consideration should be given to including these in economic evaluations and cost of illness studies. The importance of including presenteeism costs when conducting economic evaluation from a societal perspective should be emphasised in national economic guidelines and more methodological work is required to improve the practical application of presenteeism instruments to generate productivity cost estimates.

Evaluating Acupuncture and Standard carE for pregnant women with Back pain (EASE Back): a feasibility study and pilot randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Many pregnant women experience low back pain. Acupuncture appears to be a safe, promising intervention but evidence is needed about its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a future large randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the additional benefit of adding acupuncture to standard care (SC) for pregnancy-related back pain. DESIGN: Phase 1: a questionnaire survey described current care for pregnancy-related back pain. Focus groups and interviews with midwives, physiotherapists and pregnant women explored acceptability and feasibility of acupuncture and the proposed RCT. Phase 2: a single-centre pilot RCT. Participants were identified using six methods and randomised to SC, SC plus true acupuncture or SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture. PARTICIPANTS: Phase 1: 1093 physiotherapists were surveyed and 15 midwives, 21 physiotherapists and 17 pregnant women participated in five focus groups and 20 individual interviews. Phase 2: 125 women with pregnancy-related back pain participated. INTERVENTIONS: SC: a self-management booklet and onward referral for one-to-one physiotherapy (two to four sessions) for those who needed it. SC plus true acupuncture: the self-management booklet and six to eight treatments with a physiotherapist comprising true (penetrating) acupuncture, advice and exercise. SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture: the self-management booklet and six to eight treatments with a physiotherapist comprising non-penetrating acupuncture, advice and exercise. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pilot RCT outcomes included recruitment rates, treatment fidelity, follow-up rate, patient-reported pain and function, quality of life and health-care resource use. Birth and neonatal outcomes were also assessed. Staff overseeing outcome data collection were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: Phase 1: 629 (57.5%) physiotherapists responded to the survey, 499 were experienced in treating pregnancy-related back pain and reported 16 advice and 18 treatment options. Typical treatment comprised two to four individual sessions of advice and exercise over 6 weeks. Acupuncture was reported by 24%. Interviews highlighted the impact of back pain and paucity of effective interventions. Women and midwives strongly supported a RCT and expressed few concerns. Physiotherapists' concerns about acupuncture in pregnancy informed a training programme prior to the pilot RCT. Phase 2: We recruited 125 of 280 potentially eligible women (45%) in 6 months and randomised 41 to SC and 42 each to the SC plus true acupuncture and SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture arms. Analysis was conducted with 124 participants (41, 42 and 41, respectively) as one participant was randomised in error. Three of six recruitment methods were the most successful. In total, 10% of women (n = 4) randomised to SC alone accessed one-to-one physiotherapy and received an average of two treatments. The average number of treatments was six for both SC plus true acupuncture and SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture. Treatments were in line with protocols. Eight-week follow-up was 74%. Patient-reported outcomes (pain, function and quality of life) favoured the addition of acupuncture. There was no evidence of serious adverse events on mothers or birth and neonatal outcomes. The Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire was found to be an appropriate outcome measure for a future trial. CONCLUSIONS: A future main RCT is feasible and would be welcomed by women and clinicians. Longer-term follow-up and further follow-up efforts are recommended for a main trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49955124. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The choice of the most appropriate approach to valuing productivity loss has received much debate in the literature. The friction cost approach has been proposed as a more appropriate alternative to the human capital approach when valuing productivity loss, although its application remains limited. This study reviews application of the friction cost approach in health economic studies and examines how its use varies in practice across different country settings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify economic evaluation studies that have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach and published in English from 1996 to 2013. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The search yielded 46 studies from 12 countries. Of these, 28 were from the Netherlands. Thirty-five studies reported the length of friction period used, with only 16 stating explicitly the source of the friction period. Nine studies reported the elasticity correction factor used. The reported friction cost approach methods used to derive productivity costs varied in quality across studies from different countries. CONCLUSIONS: Few health economic studies have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach. The estimation and reporting of productivity costs using this method appears to differ in quality by country. The review reveals gaps and lack of clarity in reporting of methods for friction cost evaluation. Generating reporting guidelines and country-specific parameters for the friction cost approach is recommended if increased application and accuracy of the method is to be realized.