Direct and indirect costs of paediatric asthma in the UK: a cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of paediatric asthma from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective and explore determinants of these costs. DESIGN: Cost analysis based on data from a large clinical trial between 2017 and 2019. Case report forms recorded healthcare resource use and productivity losses attributable to asthma over a 12-month period. These were combined with national unit cost data to generate estimates of health service and indirect costs. SETTING: Asthma clinics in primary and secondary care in England and Scotland. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per asthma attack stratified by highest level of care received. Total annual health service and indirect costs. Modelled effect of sex, age, severity, number of attacks and adherence on total annual costs. RESULTS: Of 506 children included in the analysis, 252 experienced at least one attack. The mean (SD) cost per attack was £297 (806) (median £46, IQR 40-138) and the mean total annual cost to the NHS was £1086 (2504) (median £462, IQR 296-731). On average, children missed 6 days of school and their carers missed 13 hours of paid work, contributing to a mean annual indirect cost of £412 (879) (median £30, IQR 0-477). Health service costs increased significantly with number of attacks and participant age (>11 years). Indirect costs increased with asthma severity and number of attacks but were found to be lower in older children. CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric asthma imparts a significant economic burden on the health service, families and society. Efforts to improve asthma control may generate significant cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 67875351.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Pre-hospital and emergency department treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in adults: an evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Convulsive status epilepticus is defined as ≥ 5 minutes of either continuous seizure activity or repetitive seizures without regaining consciousness. It is regarded as an emergency condition that requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Rapid pre-hospital first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus is currently benzodiazepines, administered either by trained caregivers in the community (e.g. buccal midazolam, rectal diazepam) or by trained health professionals via intramuscular or intravenous routes (e.g. midazolam, lorazepam). There is a lack of clarity about the optimal treatment for convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for adults with convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo®, CINAHL, CENTRAL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Research Papers in Economics, and the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database, with no restrictions on publication date or language of publication. Final searches were carried out on 21 July 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing adults with convulsive status epilepticus who received treatment before or on arrival at the emergency department. Eligible treatments were any antiepileptic drugs offered as first-line treatments, regardless of their route of administration. Primary outcomes were seizure cessation, seizure recurrence and adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened all citations identified by the search strategy, retrieved full-text articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Results were described narratively. RESULTS: Four trials (1345 randomised participants, of whom 1234 were adults) assessed the intravenous or intramuscular use of benzodiazepines or other antiepileptic drugs for the pre-hospital treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in adults. Three trials at a low risk of bias showed that benzodiazepines were effective in stopping seizures. In particular, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. The addition of levetiracetam to clonazepam did not show clear advantages over clonazepam alone. One trial at a high risk of bias showed that phenobarbital plus optional phenytoin was more effective in terminating seizures than diazepam plus phenytoin. The median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 1.6 minutes to 15 minutes. The proportion of people with recurrence of seizures ranged from 10.4% to 19.1% in two trials reporting this outcome. Across trials, the rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments were generally low (from 6.4% to 10.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 2% to 7.6% in active treatment groups and from 6.2% to 15.5% in control groups. Only one study based on retrospective observational data met the criteria for economic evaluation; therefore, it was not possible to draw any robust conclusions on cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: The limited number of identified trials and their differences in terms of treatment comparisons and outcomes hindered any meaningful pooling of data. None of the included trials was conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam. The review of economic evaluations was hampered by lack of suitable data. CONCLUSIONS: Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics are more effective than a placebo in the treatments of adults with convulsive status epilepticus, and intramuscular midazolam is non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Large well-designed clinical trials are needed to establish which benzodiazepines are more effective and preferable in the pre-hospital setting. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020201953. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Epilepsy is a common condition that results from abnormal electrical activity in the brain and causes seizures (stiffening and uncontrolled jerking ­ known as a 'fit'). The most severe form of epilepsy is called 'convulsive status epilepticus', which involves continuous seizure activity for 5 minutes or more, or repetitive seizures without recovery of consciousness. Convulsive status epilepticus can be very dangerous and requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and prevent complications. Although several drugs are available for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in the community or in the emergency department, it is unclear which one is most effective in stopping seizures. We brought together results from all available clinical studies that looked at the use of drugs to treat adults with convulsive status epilepticus either before arriving at hospital or on arrival at the emergency department. In the literature, we found four studies (1234 adults) assessing drugs delivered by paramedics through an injection into a vein or into muscle. In general, the drugs used by paramedics (benzodiazepines) were effective in stopping seizures, but we were unable to identify any particular drug or way of administering it as being more successful than others. Future research is needed to establish which drugs are most effective and preferable. It is also important to improve adherence to clinical guidelines with regard to the use of these drugs. For the pre-hospital treatment of convulsive status epilepticus, little evidence was available to decide which drug treatment is the best in terms of value for money. Future studies could assess the (1) impact of treatments on costs and outcomes over the whole course of a seizure episode (2) long-term impact of different treatments on patients' quality of life and (3) health and social care needs.

Non-invasive testing for early detection of neovascular macular degeneration in unaffected second eyes of older adults: EDNA diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration is a leading cause of sight loss, and early detection and treatment is important. For patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye, it is usual practice to monitor the unaffected eye. The test used to diagnose neovascular age-related macular degeneration, fundus fluorescein angiography, is an invasive test. Non-invasive tests are available, but their diagnostic accuracy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic monitoring performance of tests for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The secondary objectives were the cost-effectiveness of tests and to identify predictive factors of developing neovascular age-related macular degeneration. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, prospective, cohort, comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a monitoring setting for up to 3 years. A Cox regression risk prediction model and a Markov microsimulation model comparing cost-effectiveness of the index tests over 25 years were used. SETTING: This took place in hospital eye services. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults (aged 50-95 years) with newly diagnosed (within the previous 6 weeks) neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye and an unaffected second (study) eye who were attending for treatment injections in the first eye and who had a study eye baseline visual acuity of ≥ 68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. INTERVENTIONS: The index tests were Amsler chart (completed by participants), fundus clinical examination, optical coherence tomography, self-reported vision assessment (completed by participants) and visual acuity. The reference standard was fundus fluorescein angiography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity; the performance of the risk predictor model; and costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: In total, 552 out of 578 patients who consented from 24 NHS hospitals (n = 16 ineligible; n = 10 withdrew consent) took part. The mean age of the patients was 77.4 years (standard deviation 7.7 years) and 57.2% were female. For the primary analysis, 464 patients underwent follow-up fundus fluorescein angiography and 120 developed neovascular age-related macular degeneration on fundus fluorescein angiography. The diagnostic accuracy [sensitivity (%) (95% confidence interval); specificity (%) (95% confidence interval)] was as follows: optical coherence tomography 91.7 (85.2 to 95.6); 87.8 (83.8 to 90.9)], fundus clinical examination [53.8 (44.8 to 62.5); 97.6 (95.3 to 98.9)], Amsler [33.7 (25.1 to 43.5); 81.4 (76.4 to 85.5)], visual acuity [30.0 (22.5 to 38.7); 66.3 (61.0 to 71.1)] and self-reported vision [4.2 (1.6 to 9.8); 97.0 (94.6 to 98.5)]. Optical coherence tomography had the highest sensitivity across all secondary analyses. The final prediction model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the non-affected eye included smoking status, family history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, the presence of nodular drusen with or without reticular pseudodrusen, and the presence of pigmentary abnormalities [c-statistic 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.71)]. Optical coherence tomography monitoring generated the greatest quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (optical coherence tomography, 5.830; fundus clinical examination, 5.787; Amsler chart, 5.736, self-reported vision, 5.630; and visual acuity, 5.600) for the lowest health-care and social care costs (optical coherence tomography, £19,406; fundus clinical examination, £19,649; Amsler chart, £19,751; self-reported vision, £20,198; and visual acuity, £20,444) over the lifetime of the simulated cohort. Optical coherence tomography dominated the other tests or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds (£20,000) across the scenarios explored. LIMITATIONS: The diagnostic performance may be different in an unselected population without any history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration; the prediction model did not include genetic profile data, which might have improved the discriminatory performance. CONCLUSIONS: Optical coherence tomography was the most accurate in diagnosing conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Economic modelling suggests that optical coherence tomography monitoring is cost-effective and leads to earlier diagnosis of and treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients being treated for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in their first eye. FUTURE WORK: Future works should investigate the role of home monitoring, improved risk prediction models and impact on long-term visual outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered as ISRCTN48855678. 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. 26, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Wet age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of sight loss in older people. It is diagnosed using fundus fluorescein angiography, which involves photographing the retina after the injection of a dye into a vein in the arm, which may result in allergic reactions. Many people with wet age-related macular degeneration in one eye will also develop it in their second eye. To avoid regular fundus fluorescein angiography, non-invasive tests are used to routinely monitor for wet age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients with wet age-related macular degeneration already in one eye. We studied five commonly used and easily performed non-invasive tests to see which best detected the onset of wet age-related macular degeneration. The five tests were: self-report of visionself-completion of an Amsler charta standard sight testexamination of the retina by a specialistoptical coherence tomography, which is a non-invasive scan of the central retina. If any tests suggested wet age-related macular degeneration, fundus fluorescein angiography was performed to compare results. In total, 552 hospital eye clinic patients who had wet age-related macular degeneration in only one eye took part. Over a 3-year period, wet age-related macular degeneration developed in the second eye in 145 people (26%), of whom 120 had undergone fundus fluorescein angiography. In 25 people with wet age-related macular degeneration, fundus fluorescein angiography was not carried out for safety reasons or because the patient did not want to undergo it. Of all the tests, only optical coherence tomography was good at detecting wet age-related macular degeneration correctly (92% sensitivity) and at detecting those who did not have wet age-related macular degeneration (88% specificity). All other tests either did not detect wet age-related macular degeneration consistently when it occurred or gave a false positive result when it had not occurred. This study confirmed that optical coherence tomography detected wet age-related macular degeneration correctly in the second eye of people with wet age-related macular degeneration in their first eye, and may offer cost saving for the NHS.

Biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury for people who are being considered for admission to critical care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is a serious complication that occurs in the context of an acute critical illness or during a postoperative period. Earlier detection of acute kidney injury may facilitate strategies to preserve renal function, prevent further disease progression and reduce mortality. Acute kidney injury diagnosis relies on a rise in serum creatinine levels and/or fall in urine output; however, creatinine is an imperfect marker of kidney function. There is interest in the performance of novel biomarkers used in conjunction with existing clinical assessment, such as NephroCheck® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), ARCHITECT® urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), and urine and plasma BioPorto NGAL (BioPorto Diagnostics A/S, Hellerup, Denmark) immunoassays. If reliable, these biomarkers may enable earlier identification of acute kidney injury and enhance management of those with a modifiable disease course. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the role of biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury in critically ill patients who are considered for admission to critical care. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases, conference abstracts and ongoing studies were searched up to June 2019, with no date restrictions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, EU Clinical Trials Register, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the performance of novel biomarkers for the detection of acute kidney injury and prediction of other relevant clinical outcomes. Random-effects models were adopted to combine evidence. A decision tree was developed to evaluate costs and quality-adjusted life-years accrued as a result of changes in short-term outcomes (up to 90 days), and a Markov model was used to extrapolate results over a lifetime time horizon. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies (17,967 participants), mainly prospective cohort studies, were selected for inclusion. No studies addressing the clinical impact of the use of biomarkers on patient outcomes, compared with standard care, were identified. The main sources of bias across studies were a lack of information on blinding and the optimal threshold for NGAL. For prediction studies, the reporting of statistical details was limited. Although the meta-analyses results showed the potential ability of these biomarkers to detect and predict acute kidney injury, there were limited data to establish any causal link with longer-term health outcomes and there were considerable clinical differences across studies. Cost-effectiveness results were highly uncertain, largely speculative and should be interpreted with caution in the light of the limited evidence base. To illustrate the current uncertainty, 15 scenario analyses were undertaken. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very low across all scenarios, ranging from positive to negative increments. Incremental costs were also small, in general, with some scenarios generating cost savings with tests dominant over standard care (cost savings with quality-adjusted life-year gains). However, other scenarios generated results whereby the candidate tests were more costly with fewer quality-adjusted life-years, and were thus dominated by standard care. Therefore, it was not possible to determine a plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the tests, compared with standard care. LIMITATIONS: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results were hampered by the considerable heterogeneity across identified studies. Economic model predictions should also be interpreted cautiously because of the unknown impact of NGAL-guided treatment, and uncertain causal links between changes in acute kidney injury status and changes in health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to make a full appraisal of the role and economic value of these biomarkers and to determine whether or not they provide cost-effective improvements in the clinical outcomes of acute kidney injury patients. FUTURE WORK: Future studies should evaluate the targeted use of biomarkers among specific patient populations and the clinical impact of their routine use on patient outcomes and management. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147039. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Among people who are very ill or have undergone surgery, the kidneys may suddenly stop working properly. This is known as acute kidney injury. Acute kidney injury can progress to serious kidney problems and can be fatal. Currently, to decide whether or not acute kidney injury is present, doctors use the level of creatinine (a waste product filtered by the kidneys) in the blood or urine. However, creatinine levels are not a precise indicator and they can take hours or days to rise; this may lead to delays in acute kidney injury recognition. Novel biomarkers may help doctors to recognise the presence of acute kidney injury earlier and treat patients promptly. This work evaluates current evidence on the use of biomarkers for acute kidney injury with respect to clinical usefulness and costs. We reviewed the current evidence on the use of biomarkers for assessing the risk of acute kidney injury among people who are very ill, and assessed whether or not the evidence was of good value for the NHS. We assessed the ARCHITECT^® urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), urine and plasma BioPorto NGAL (BioPorto Diagnostics A/S, Hellerup, Denmark) and urine NephroCheck^® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) biomarkers. We checked studies published up to June 2019 and found 56 relevant studies (17,967 patients). Most studies were conducted outside the UK and investigated people already admitted to critical care. We combined the results of the studies and found that NephroCheck and NGAL biomarkers might be useful in identifying acute kidney injury or pre-empting acute kidney injury in some circumstances. However, studies differed in patient characteristics, clinical setting and the way in which biomarkers were used. This could explain why the number of people correctly identified and missed by the biomarkers varied across studies. Hence, we do not completely trust the pooled results. We also found that acute kidney injury is associated with substantial costs for the NHS, but there was insufficient good-quality evidence to decide which biomarker (if any) offered the best value for money.

Economic evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: An educational overview of methods and applications for healthcare professionals.

Economic evaluations of the value-for-money of Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR) interventions are increasingly important due to growing pressure on healthcare budgets. Although such evaluations are commonplace in the published literature, the number/methodological complexity of different evaluations available, and the challenges specific to MAR interventions, can complicate the interpretation of such analyses for fertility treatments. This article aims to serve as an educational resource and provide context on the design/interpretation of economic analyses for MAR interventions. Several areas are relevant for first-line providers and decision makers: scope of analysis, comparator used, perspective/time horizon considered, outcomes used to measure success, and how results from cost-effectiveness studies can be summarised and used in clinical practice. We aim to help clinicians better understand the strengths/weaknesses of economic analyses, to enable the best use of the evidence in practice, so resources available for MAR interventions can provide maximum value to patients and society.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

Early detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: an economic evaluation based on data from the EDNA study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of non-invasive monitoring tests to detect the onset of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in the unaffected second eye of patients receiving treatment for unilateral nAMD in a UK National Health Service (NHS) hospital outpatient setting. METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was constructed to simulate the onset, detection, and treatment of nAMD in the second eye. Five index tests were compared: self-reported change in visual function, Amsler test, clinic measured change in visual acuity from baseline, fundus assessment by clinical examination or colour photography, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Diagnosis of nAMD was confirmed by fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) before prompt initiation of antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of health and social care were modelled over a 25-year time horizon. RESULTS: SD-OCT generated more QALYs (SD-OCT, 5.830; fundus assessment, 5.787; Amsler grid, 5.736, patient's subjective assessment, 5.630; and visual acuity, 5.600) and lower health and social care costs (SD-OCT, £19 406; fundus assessment, £19 649; Amsler grid, £19 751; patient's subjective assessment, £20 198 and visual acuity, £20 444) per patient compared with other individual monitoring tests. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a high probability (97%-99%) of SD-OCT being the preferred test across a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds (£13 000-£30 000) applied in the UK NHS. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment of the second eye following FFA confirmation of SD-OCT positive findings is expected to maintain better visual acuity and health-related quality of life and may reduce costs of health and social care over the lifetime of patients.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of NephroCheck and NGAL tests compared to standard care for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Early and accurate acute kidney injury (AKI) detection may improve patient outcomes and reduce health service costs. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of NephroCheck and NGAL (urine and plasma) biomarker tests used alongside standard care, compared with standard care to detect AKI in hospitalised UK adults. METHODS: A 90-day decision tree and lifetime Markov cohort model predicted costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from a UK NHS perspective. Test accuracy was informed by a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clinical trial and observational data informed the link between AKI and health outcomes, health state probabilities, costs and utilities. Value of information (VOI) analysis informed future research priorities. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, the biomarker tests were not cost-effective with ICERs of £105,965 (NephroCheck), £539,041 (NGAL urine BioPorto), £633,846 (NGAL plasma BioPorto) and £725,061 (NGAL urine ARCHITECT) per QALY gained compared to standard care. Results were uncertain, due to limited trial data, with probabilities of cost-effectiveness at £20,000 per QALY ranging from 0 to 99% and 0 to 56% for NephroCheck and NGAL tests respectively. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was £66 M, which demonstrated that additional research to resolve decision uncertainty is worthwhile. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is inadequate to support the cost-effectiveness of general use of biomarker tests. Future research evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of test guided implementation of protective care bundles is necessary. Improving the evidence base around the impact of tests on AKI staging, and of AKI staging on clinical outcomes would have the greatest impact on reducing decision uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of multiple frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease having dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis, sub-optimal fluid management has been linked with hospitalisation, cardiovascular complications and death. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness using multiple-frequency bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard fluid management based on clinical judgment. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare expected costs, outcomes and quality adjusted life years of the alternative management strategies. The relative effectiveness of the bioimpedance guided approach was informed by a systematic review of clinical trials, and focussed reviews were conducted to identify baseline event rates, costs and health state utility values for application in the model. The model was analysed probabilistically and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard management was £16,536 per QALY gained. There was a 59% chance of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY. Form the VOI analysis, the theoretical upper bound on the value of further research was £53 million. The value of further research was highest for parameters relating to the relative effectiveness of bioimpedance guided management on final health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple frequency bioimpedance testing may offer a cost-effective approach to improve fluid management in patients with CKD on dialysis, but further research would be of value to reduce the current uncertainties.

The Help for Hay Fever community pharmacy-based pilot randomised controlled trial for intermittent allergic rhinitis.

Management of intermittent allergic rhinitis (IAR) is suboptimal in the UK. An Australian community pharmacy-based intervention has been shown to help patients better self-manage their IAR. We conducted a pilot cluster RCT in 12 Scottish community pharmacies to assess transferability of the Australian intervention. Trained staff in intervention pharmacies delivered the intervention to eligible customers (n = 60). Non-intervention pharmacy participants (n = 65) received usual care. Outcome measures included effect size of change in the mini-Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (miniRQLQ) between baseline, 1-week and 6-week follow-up. Trial procedures were well received by pharmacy staff, and customer satisfaction with the intervention was high. The standardised effect size for miniRQLQ total score was -0.46 (95% CI, -1.05, 0.13) for all participants and -0.14 (95% CI,-0.86, 0.57) in the complete case analysis, suggesting a small overall treatment effect in the intervention group. A full-scale RCT is warranted to fully evaluate the effectiveness of this service.

Nitroglycerin for treatment of retained placenta: A randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre, double-blind trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Retained placenta following vaginal delivery is a major cause of postpartum haemorrhage. Currently, the only effective treatments for a retained placenta are the surgical procedures of manual removal of placenta (MROP) and uterine curettage, which are not universally available, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of the trial was to determine whether sublingual nitroglycerin spray was clinically effective and cost-effective for medical treatment of retained placenta following vaginal delivery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was undertaken between October 2014 and July 2017 at 29 delivery units in the UK (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle, Preston, Warrington, Chesterfield, Crewe, Durham, West Middlesex, Aylesbury, Furness, Southampton, Bolton, Sunderland, Oxford, Nottingham [2 units], Burnley, Chertsey, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesborough, Chester, Darlington, York, Reading, Milton Keynes, Telford, Frimley). In total, 1,107 women with retained placenta following vaginal delivery were recruited. The intervention was self-administered 2 puffs of sublingual nitroglycerin (800 µg; intervention, N = 543) or placebo spray (control, N = 564). The primary clinical outcome was the need for MROP, assessed at 15 minutes following administration of the intervention. Analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary safety outcome was measured blood loss between study drug administration and transfer to the postnatal ward or other clinical area. The primary patient-sided outcomes were satisfaction with treatment and side-effect profile, assessed by questionnaires pre-discharge and 6 weeks post-delivery. Secondary clinical outcomes were measured at 5 and 15 minutes after study drug administration and prior to hospital discharge. There was no statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference in need for MROP by 15 minutes (primary clinical outcome, 505 [93.3%] for nitroglycerin versus 518 [92.0%] for placebo, odds ratio [OR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.98-1.04], p = 0.393) or blood loss (<500 ml: nitroglycerin, 238 [44.3%], versus placebo, 249 [44.5%]; 500 ml-1,000 ml: nitroglycerin, 180 [33.5%], versus placebo, 224 [40.0%]; >1,000 ml: nitroglycerin, 119 [22.2%], versus placebo, 87 [15.5%]; ordinal OR 1.14 [95% CI 0.88-1.48], p = 0.314) or satisfaction with treatment (nitroglycerin, 288 [75.4%], versus placebo, 303 [78.1%]; OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.62-1.22], p = 0.411) or health service costs (mean difference [£] 55.3 [95% CI -199.20 to 309.79]). Palpitations following drug administration were reported more often in the nitroglycerin group (36 [9.8%] versus 15 [4.0%], OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.40-4.84], p = 0.003). There were 52 serious adverse events during the trial, with no statistically significant difference in likelihood between groups (nitroglycerin, 27 [5.0%], versus placebo, 26 [4.6%]; OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.54-2.38], p = 0.747). The main limitation of our study was the low return rate for the 6-week postnatal questionnaire. There were, however, no differences in questionnaire return rates between study groups or between women who did and did not have MROP, with the patient-reported use of outpatient and primary care services at 6 weeks accounting for only a small proportion (approximately 5%) of overall health service costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that nitroglycerin is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective as a medical treatment for retained placenta, and has increased side effects, suggesting it should not be used. Further research is required to identify an effective medical treatment for retained placenta to reduce the morbidity caused by this condition, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where surgical management is not available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN88609453 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02085213.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB. DESIGN: A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure. SETTING: Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork. INTERVENTIONS: LASH compared with second-generation EA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure. FUTURE WORK: Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Almost 1.5 million women in England and Wales suffer from heavy periods. Initial treatment involves tablets or a medicated coil inserted within the womb. Sometimes these treatments do not work and many women need an operation, either endometrial ablation (EA) (removing the lining of the womb) or a full hysterectomy (complete removal of the womb). Previous studies have shown that a full hysterectomy is better at relieving symptoms, but the risk of complications during surgery is higher and patients take longer to recover fully. A newer operation, laparoscopic (keyhole) supracervical hysterectomy, or 'LASH', removes only the part of the womb that causes periods and preserves the cervix or neck of the womb. Women who have LASH can expect fewer complications, earlier discharge from hospital and quicker recovery time. In this study, we compared EA with LASH by asking women who had either procedure how they felt about it 1 year after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, most women were very satisfied and felt that their symptoms were better. However, the results were much better for those who had the LASH operation, although these women stayed in hospital for longer and took more time to recover. There was no difference in complications from either surgery, although nearly 1 in 20 women who had an EA returned within 1 year to have their wombs removed in a second operation. Although LASH led to a greater improvement in symptoms and levels of satisfaction, it was more expensive in terms of costs incurred by both the health service and society. Given that some women who had an EA are likely to need a second operation in the future, LASH surgery may provide better value for money in the long term.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus endometrial ablation for women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893. FINDINGS: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Five-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial of Treatments for Varicose Veins.

BACKGROUND: Endovenous laser ablation and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy are recommended alternatives to surgery for the treatment of primary varicose veins, but their long-term comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of laser ablation, foam sclerotherapy, and surgery. Primary outcomes at 5 years were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as well as cost-effectiveness based on models of expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained that used data on participants' treatment costs and scores on the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire. RESULTS: Quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 595 (75%) of the 798 trial participants. After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, scores on the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (on which scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) were lower among patients who underwent laser ablation or surgery than among those who underwent foam sclerotherapy (effect size [adjusted differences between groups] for laser ablation vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.49 to -1.22; P<0.001; and for surgery vs. foam sclerotherapy, -2.60; 95% CI, -3.99 to -1.22; P<0.001). Generic quality-of-life measures did not differ among treatment groups. At a threshold willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433 in U.S. dollars) per QALY, 77.2% of the cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation. In a two-way comparison between foam sclerotherapy and surgery, 54.5% of the model iterations favored surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of treatments for varicose veins, disease-specific quality of life 5 years after treatment was better after laser ablation or surgery than after foam sclerotherapy. The majority of the probabilistic cost-effectiveness model iterations favored laser ablation at a willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 ($28,433) per QALY. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; CLASS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.).

Study protocol: E-freeze - freezing of embryos in assisted conception: a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Infertility affects one in seven couples; many of these need in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IVF involves external hormones to stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs which are harvested surgically. Embryos, created in the laboratory by mixing eggs with sperm, are grown in culture for a few days before being replaced within the uterus (fresh embryo transfer). Spare embryos are usually frozen with a view to transfer at a later point in time - especially if the initial fresh transfer does not result in a pregnancy. Despite improvements in technology, IVF success rates remain low with an overall live birth rate of 25-30% per treatment. Additionally, there are concerns about health outcomes for mothers and babies conceived through IVF, particularly after fresh embryo transfer, including maternal ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and preterm delivery. It is believed that high levels of hormones during ovarian stimulation could create a relatively hostile environment for embryo implantation whilst increasing the risk of OHSS. It has been suggested that freezing all embryos with the intention of thawing and replacing them within the uterus at a later stage (thawed frozen embryo transfer) instead of fresh embryo transfer, may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer, with the primary aim of identifying any difference in the chance of having a healthy baby. METHODS: E-Freeze is a pragmatic, multicentre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial where women aged ≥18 and < 42 years, with at least three good quality embryos are randomly allocated to receive either a fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a term, singleton, live birth with appropriate weight for gestation. Cost effectiveness will be calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective. DISCUSSION: E-Freeze will determine the relative benefits of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer in terms of improving the chance of having a healthy baby. The results of this pragmatic study have the potential to be directly transferred to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Date assigned 29/12/2015.

Glyceryl trinitrate to reduce the need for manual removal of retained placenta following vaginal delivery: the GOT-IT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Retained placenta is associated with postpartum haemorrhage and can lead to significant maternal morbidity if untreated. The only effective treatment is the surgical procedure of manual removal of placenta, which is costly, requires skilled staff, requires an operative environment and is unpleasant for women. Small studies suggest that glyceryl trinitrate may be an effective medical alternative. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate spray compared with placebo in reducing the need for manual removal of placenta in women with retained placenta after vaginal delivery following the failure of current management. DESIGN: A group-sequential randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial with a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: There were 29 obstetric units in the UK involved in the study. PARTICIPANTS: There were 1107 women (glyceryl trinitrate group, n = 543; placebo group, n = 564) randomised between October 2014 and July 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Glyceryl trinitrate spray was administered to 541 women in the intervention group, and a placebo was administered to 563 women in the control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four primary outcomes were defined: (1) clinical - the need for manual removal of placenta, (2) safety - measured blood loss, (3) patient sided - satisfaction with treatment and side effects and (4) economic - cost-effectiveness of both treatments using the UK NHS perspective. Secondary clinical outcomes included a > 15% decrease in haemoglobin level, time from randomisation to delivery of placenta in theatre, the need for earlier manual removal of placenta than planned, increase in heart rate or decrease in blood pressure, requirement for blood transfusion, requirement for general anaesthesia, maternal pyrexia, and sustained uterine relaxation requiring additional uterotonics. RESULTS: No difference was observed between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group for the placenta remaining undelivered within 15 minutes of study treatment (93.3% vs. 92%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.04; p = 0.393). There was no difference in blood loss of > 1000 ml between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group (22.2% vs. 15.5%; odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.48; p = 0.314). Palpitations were more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group after taking the study drug (9.8% vs. 4.0%; odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 4.84; p = 0.003). There was no difference in any other measures of patient satisfaction between the groups. There was no difference in costs to the health service between groups (mean difference £55.30, 95% confidence interval -£199.20 to £309.79). Secondary outcomes revealed that a fall in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or an increase in heart rate, was more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 3.7 to 6.4; p < 0.001). The need for a blood transfusion was also more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.25; p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Glyceryl trinitrate spray did not increase the delivery of retained placenta within 15 minutes of administration when compared with the placebo, and was not cost-effective for medical management of retained placenta. More participants reported palpitations and required a blood transfusion in the glyceryl trinitrate group. Further research into alternative methods of medical management of retained placenta is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88609453. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A retained placenta is diagnosed when, following the birth of a baby, the placenta is not delivered. When this situation occurs, women are at risk of bleeding heavily. The only way to treat a retained placenta is for a trained doctor to remove it by an operation in theatre. This procedure can be painful and upsetting. Furthermore, the timing of the operation can interrupt mother­baby bonding immediately after giving birth. The study tested if the use of glyceryl trinitrate spray, given as two puffs under the woman's tongue following the diagnosis of retained placenta, may help the placenta to deliver without an operation. The study also tested if glyceryl trinitrate was safe, assessed what women thought about the treatment and compared the costs of glyceryl trinitrate with those of current operative management. This study included 1107 women diagnosed with retained placenta following the birth of their baby. Half of the women were treated with glyceryl trinitrate spray and the other half were treated with a dummy spray, which looked identical but did not contain the active treatment. If the placenta delivered within 15 minutes of the study treatment being taken, this was considered a success. However, if the placenta did not deliver within 15 minutes and the woman had to have her placenta removed by an operation, then this was viewed as unsuccessful. Neither the woman nor the clinical staff knew if the treatment given was the glyceryl trinitrate spray or the dummy spray. The results indicate that, although women were happy to be involved in the trial and the treatment was safe, the use of glyceryl trinitrate spray did not reduce the need for the placenta to be manually removed by an operation in theatre. Furthermore, glyceryl trinitrate spray was not cost-effective.

Multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition requiring treatment such as conservative management, kidney transplantation or dialysis. To optimise the volume of fluid removed during dialysis (to avoid underhydration or overhydration), people are assigned a 'target weight', which is commonly assessed using clinical methods, such as weight gain between dialysis sessions, pre- and post-dialysis blood pressure and patient-reported symptoms. However, these methods are not precise, and measurement devices based on bioimpedance technology are increasingly used in dialysis centres. Current evidence on the role of bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with CKD receiving dialysis is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices versus standard clinical assessment for fluid management in people with CKD receiving dialysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases [e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)] conference abstracts and ongoing studies. There were no date restrictions. Searches were undertaken between June and October 2016. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluid management by multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices and standard clinical assessment in people receiving dialysis, and non-randomised studies evaluating the use of the devices for fluid management in people receiving dialysis. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A second reviewer cross-checked the extracted data. Standard meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Five RCTs (with 904 adult participants) and eight non-randomised studies (with 4915 adult participants) assessing the use of the Body Composition Monitor [(BCM) Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany] were included. Both absolute overhydration and relative overhydration were significantly lower in patients evaluated using BCM measurements than for those evaluated using standard clinical methods [weighted mean difference -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.15, p = 0.003, I2 = 49%; and weighted mean difference -1.84, 95% CI -3.65 to -0.03; p = 0.05, I2 = 52%, respectively]. Pooled effects of bioimpedance monitoring on systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mean difference -2.46 mmHg, 95% CI -5.07 to 0.15 mmHg; p = 0.06, I2 = 0%), arterial stiffness (mean difference -1.18, 95% CI -3.14 to 0.78; p = 0.24, I2 = 92%) and mortality (hazard ratio = 0.689, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.08; p = 0.51) were not statistically significant. The economic evaluation showed that, when dialysis costs were included in the model, the probability of bioimpedance monitoring being cost-effective ranged from 13% to 26% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. With dialysis costs excluded, the corresponding probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 61% to 67%. LIMITATIONS: Lack of evidence on clinically relevant outcomes, children receiving dialysis, and any multifrequency bioimpedance devices, other than the BCM. CONCLUSIONS: BCM used in addition to clinical assessment may lower overhydration and potentially improve intermediate outcomes, such as SBP, but effects on mortality have not been demonstrated. If dialysis costs are not considered, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falls below £20,000, with modest effects on mortality and/or hospitalisation rates. The current findings are not generalisable to paediatric populations nor across other multifrequency bioimpedance devices. FUTURE WORK: Services that routinely use the BCM should report clinically relevant intermediate and long-term outcomes before and after introduction of the device to extend the current evidence base. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041785. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A pragmatic group sequential, placebo-controlled, randomised trial to determine the effectiveness of glyceryl trinitrate for retained placenta (GOT-IT): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A retained placenta is diagnosed when the placenta is not delivered following delivery of the baby. It is a major cause of postpartum haemorrhage and treated by the operative procedure of manual removal of placenta (MROP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind UK-wide trial, with an internal pilot and nested qualitative research to adjust strategies to refine delivery of the main trial, is to determine whether sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) is (or is not) clinically and cost-effective for (medical) management of retained placenta. The primary clinical outcome is need for MROP, defined as the placenta remaining undelivered 15 min poststudy treatment and/or being required within 15 min of treatment due to safety concerns. The primary safety outcome is measured blood loss between administration of treatment and transfer to the postnatal ward or other clinical area. The primary patient-sided outcome is satisfaction with treatment and a side effect profile. The primary economic outcome is net incremental costs (or cost savings) to the National Health Service of using GTN versus standard practice. Secondary outcomes are being measured over a range of clinical and economic domains. The primary outcomes will be analysed using linear models appropriate to the distribution of each outcome. Health service costs will be compared with multiple trial outcomes in a cost-consequence analysis of GTN versus standard practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North-East Newcastle & North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (13/NE/0339). Dissemination plans for the trial include the Health Technology Assessment Monograph, presentation at international scientific meetings and publication in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN88609453; Pre-results.