Evaluation of Flexible Parametric Relative Survival Approaches for Enforcing Long-Term Constraints When Extrapolating All-Cause Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Parametric models are used to estimate the lifetime benefit of an intervention beyond the range of trial follow-up. Recent recommendations have suggested more flexible survival approaches and the use of external data when extrapolating. Both of these can be realized by using flexible parametric relative survival modeling. The overall aim of this article is to introduce and contrast various approaches for applying constraints on the long-term disease-related (excess) mortality including cure models and evaluate the consequent implications for extrapolation. METHODS: We describe flexible parametric relative survival modeling approaches. We then introduce various options for constraining the long-term excess mortality and compare the performance of each method in simulated data. These methods include fitting a standard flexible parametric relative survival model, enforcing statistical cure, and forcing the long-term excess mortality to converge to a constant. We simulate various scenarios, including where statistical cure is reasonable and where the long-term excess mortality persists. RESULTS: The compared approaches showed similar survival fits within the follow-up period. However, when extrapolating the all-cause survival beyond trial follow-up, there is variation depending on the assumption made about the long-term excess mortality. Altering the time point from which the excess mortality is constrained enables further flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: The various constraints can lead to applying explicit assumptions when extrapolating, which could lead to more plausible survival extrapolations. The inclusion of general population mortality directly into the model-building process, which is possible for all considered approaches, should be adopted more widely in survival extrapolation in health technology assessment.

Perils of Randomized Controlled Trial Survival Extrapolation Assuming Treatment Effect Waning: Why the Distinction Between Marginal and Conditional Estimates Matters.

OBJECTIVES: A long-term, constant, protective treatment effect is a strong assumption when extrapolating survival beyond clinical trial follow-up; hence, sensitivity to treatment effect waning is commonly assessed for economic evaluations. Forcing a hazard ratio (HR) to 1 does not necessarily estimate loss of individual-level treatment effect accurately because of HR selection bias. A simulation study was designed to explore the behavior of marginal HRs under a waning conditional (individual-level) treatment effect and demonstrate bias in forcing a marginal HR to 1 when the estimand is "survival difference with individual-level waning". METHODS: Data were simulated under 4 parameter combinations (varying prognostic strength of heterogeneity and treatment effect). Time-varying marginal HRs were estimated in scenarios where the true conditional HR attenuated to 1. Restricted mean survival time differences, estimated having constrained the marginal HR to 1, were compared with true values to assess bias induced by marginal constraints. RESULTS: Under loss of conditional treatment effect, the marginal HR took a value >1 because of covariate imbalances. Constraining this value to 1 lead to restricted mean survival time difference bias of up to 0.8 years (57% increase). Inflation of effect size estimates also increased with the magnitude of initial protective treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences exist between survival extrapolations assuming marginal versus conditional treatment effect waning. When a marginal HR is constrained to 1 to assess efficacy under individual-level treatment effect waning, the survival benefits associated with the new treatment will be overestimated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be underestimated.

Intima-media thickness at the near or far wall of the common carotid artery in cardiovascular risk assessment.

Aims: Current guidelines recommend measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) at the far wall of the common carotid artery (CCA). We aimed to precisely quantify associations of near vs. far wall CCA-IMT with the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD, defined as coronary heart disease or stroke) and their added predictive values. Methods and results: We analysed individual records of 41 941 participants from 16 prospective studies in the Proof-ATHERO consortium {mean age 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11]; 53% female; 16% prior CVD}. Mean baseline values of near and far wall CCA-IMT were 0.83 (SD = 0.28) and 0.82 (SD = 0.27) mm, differed by a mean of 0.02 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.40 to 0.43), and were moderately correlated [r = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.49). Over a median follow-up of 9.3 years, we recorded 10 423 CVD events. We pooled study-specific hazard ratios for CVD using random-effects meta-analysis. Near and far wall CCA-IMT values were approximately linearly associated with CVD risk. The respective hazard ratios per SD higher value were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14-1.22; I² = 30.7%) and 1.20 (1.18-1.23; I² = 5.3%) when adjusted for age, sex, and prior CVD and 1.09 (1.07-1.12; I² = 8.4%) and 1.14 (1.12-1.16; I²=1.3%) upon multivariable adjustment (all P < 0.001). Assessing CCA-IMT at both walls provided a greater C-index improvement than assessing CCA-IMT at one wall only [+0.0046 vs. +0.0023 for near (P < 0.001), +0.0037 for far wall (P = 0.006)]. Conclusions: The associations of near and far wall CCA-IMT with incident CVD were positive, approximately linear, and similarly strong. Improvement in risk discrimination was highest when CCA-IMT was measured at both walls.

Survival Extrapolation Incorporating General Population Mortality Using Excess Hazard and Cure Models: A Tutorial.

BACKGROUND: Different parametric survival models can lead to widely discordant extrapolations and decision uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. The use of excess hazard (EH) methods, which incorporate general population mortality data, has the potential to reduce model uncertainty. This review highlights key practical considerations of EH methods for estimating long-term survival. METHODS: Demonstration of methods used a case study of 686 patients from the German Breast Cancer Study Group, followed for a maximum of 7.3 y and divided into low (1/2) and high (3) grade cancers. Seven standard parametric survival models were fit to each group separately. The same 7 distributions were then used in an EH framework, which incorporated general population mortality rates, and fitted both with and without a cure parameter. Survival extrapolations, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and difference in RMST between high and low grades were compared up to 30 years along with Akaike information criterion goodness-of-fit and cure fraction estimates. The sensitivity of the EH models to lifetable misspecification was investigated. RESULTS: In our case study, variability in survival extrapolations was extensive across the standard models, with 30-y RMST ranging from 7.5 to 14.3 y. Incorporation of general population mortality rates using EH cure methods substantially reduced model uncertainty, whereas EH models without cure had less of an effect. Long-term treatment effects approached the null for most models but at varying rates. Lifetable misspecification had minimal effect on RMST differences. CONCLUSIONS: EH methods may be useful for survival extrapolation, and in cancer, EHs may decrease over time and be easier to extrapolate than all-cause hazards. EH cure models may be helpful when cure is plausible and likely to result in less extrapolation variability. HIGHLIGHTS: In health economic modeling, to help anchor long-term survival extrapolation, it has been recommended that survival models incorporate background mortality rates using excess hazard (EH) methods.We present a thorough description of EH methods with and without the assumption of cure and demonstrate user-friendly software to aid researchers wishing to use these methods.EH models are applied to a case study, and we demonstrate that EHs are easier to extrapolate and that the use of the EH cure model, when cure is plausible, can reduce extrapolation variability.EH methods are relatively robust to lifetable misspecification.

The Validity of Surrogate Endpoints in Sub Groups of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Defined by Treatment Class and KRAS Status.

Background and Aim: Findings from the literature suggest that the validity of surrogate endpoints in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may depend on a treatments' mechanism of action. We explore this and the impact of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) status on surrogacy patterns in mCRC. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological therapies in mCRC. Bayesian meta-analytic methods for surrogate endpoint evaluation were used to evaluate surrogate relationships across all RCTs, by KRAS status and treatment class. Surrogate endpoints explored were progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS), and tumour response (TR) as a surrogate for PFS and OS. Results: 66 RCTs were identified from the systematic review. PFS showed a strong surrogate relationship with OS across all data and in subgroups by KRAS status. The relationship appeared stronger within individual treatment classes compared to the overall analysis. The TR-PFS and TR-OS relationships were found to be weak overall but stronger within the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor + Chemotherapy (EGFR + Chemo) treatment class; both overall and in the wild type (WT) patients for TR-PFS, but not in patients with the mutant (MT) KRAS status where data were limited. Conclusions: PFS appeared to be a good surrogate endpoint for OS. TR showed a moderate surrogate relationship with PFS and OS for the EGFR + Chemo treatment class. There was some evidence of impact of the mechanism of action on the strength of the surrogacy patterns in mCRC, but little evidence of the impact of KRAS status on the validity of surrogate endpoints.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the pilot study for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

Modelling the impact of changes to abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and treatment services in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme (NAAASP) in England screens 65-year-old men. The programme monitors those with an aneurysm, and early intervention for large aneurysms reduces ruptures and AAA-related mortality. AAA screening services have been disrupted following COVID-19 but it is not known how this may impact AAA-related mortality, or where efforts should be focussed as services resume. METHODS: We repurposed a previously validated discrete event simulation model to investigate the impact of COVID-19-related service disruption on key outcomes. This model was used to explore the impact of delayed invitation and reduced attendance in men invited to screening. Additionally, we investigated the impact of temporarily suspending scans, increasing the threshold for elective surgery to 7cm and increasing drop-out in the AAA cohort under surveillance, using data from NAAASP to inform the population. FINDINGS: Delaying invitation to primary screening up to two years had little impact on key outcomes whereas a 10% reduction in attendance could lead to a 2% lifetime increase in AAA-related deaths. In surveillance patients, a 1-year suspension of surveillance or increase in the elective threshold resulted in a 0.4% increase in excess AAA-related deaths (8% in those 5-5.4cm at the start). Longer suspensions or a doubling of drop-out from surveillance would have a pronounced impact on outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Efforts should be directed towards encouraging men to attend AAA screening service appointments post-COVID-19. Those with AAAs on surveillance should be prioritised as the screening programme resumes, as changes to these services beyond one year are likely to have a larger impact on surgical burden and AAA-related mortality.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Changes to the Surveillance Intervals in the UK Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and cost-effectiveness of lengthening the time between surveillance ultrasound scans in the UK Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Screening Programme. METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening for men aged 65, comparing current surveillance intervals to 6 alternative surveillance interval strategies that lengthened the time between surveillance scans for 1 or more AAA size categories. The model considered clinical events and costs incurred over a 30-year time horizon and the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The model adopted the National Health Service perspective and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5%. RESULTS: Compared with current practice, alternative surveillance strategies resulted in up to a 4% reduction in the number of elective AAA repairs but with an increase of up to 1.6% in the number of AAA ruptures and AAA-related deaths. Alternative strategies resulted in a small reduction in QALYs compared to current practice but with reduced costs. Two strategies that lengthened surveillance intervals in only very small AAAs (3.0-3.9 cm) provided, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the highest positive incremental net benefit. There was negligible chance that current practice is the most cost-effective strategy at any threshold below £40 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Lengthening surveillance intervals in the UK Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme, especially for small AAA, can marginally reduce the incremental cost per QALY of the program. Nevertheless, whether the cost savings from refining surveillance strategies justifies a change in clinical practice is unclear.

Optimizing Surveillance and Re-intervention Strategy Following Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm has an initial survival advantage over OR, but more frequent complications increase costs and long-term aneurysm-related mortality. Randomized controlled trials of EVAR versus OR have shown EVAR is not cost-effective over a patient's lifetime. However, in the EVAR-1 trial, postoperative surveillance may have been sub-optimal, as the importance of sac growth as a predictor of graft failure was overlooked. METHODS: Real-world data informed a discrete event simulation model of postoperative outcomes following EVAR. Outcomes observed EVAR-1 were compared with those from 5 alternative postoperative surveillance and re-intervention strategies. Key events, quality-adjusted life years and costs were predicted. The impact of using complication and rupture rates from more recent devices, imaging and re-intervention methods was also explored. RESULTS: Compared with observed EVAR-1 outcomes, modeling full adherence to the EVAR-1 scan protocol reduced abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) deaths by 3% and increased elective re-interventions by 44%. European Society re-intervention guidelines provided the most clinically effective strategy, with an 8% reduction in AAA deaths, but a 52% increase in elective re-interventions. The cheapest and most cost-effective strategy used lifetime annual ultrasound in primary care with confirmatory computed tomography if necessary, and reduced AAA-related deaths by 5%. Using contemporary rates for complications and rupture did not alter these conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: All alternative strategies improved clinical benefits compared with the EVAR-1 trial. Further work is needed regarding the cost and accuracy of primary care ultrasound, and the potential impact of these strategies in the comparison with OR.

Mixed-effects models for health care longitudinal data with an informative visiting process: A Monte Carlo simulation study.

Electronic health records are being increasingly used in medical research to answer more relevant and detailed clinical questions; however, they pose new and significant methodological challenges. For instance, observation times are likely correlated with the underlying disease severity: Patients with worse conditions utilise health care more and may have worse biomarker values recorded. Traditional methods for analysing longitudinal data assume independence between observation times and disease severity; yet, with health care data, such assumptions unlikely hold. Through Monte Carlo simulation, we compare different analytical approaches proposed to account for an informative visiting process to assess whether they lead to unbiased results. Furthermore, we formalise a joint model for the observation process and the longitudinal outcome within an extended joint modelling framework. We illustrate our results using data from a pragmatic trial on enhanced care for individuals with chronic kidney disease, and we introduce user-friendly software that can be used to fit the joint model for the observation process and a longitudinal outcome.

Screening women aged 65 years or over for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a modelling study and health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes have been established for men in the UK to reduce deaths from AAA rupture. Whether or not screening should be extended to women is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population screening for AAAs in women and compare a range of screening options. DESIGN: A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to provide a clinically realistic model of screening, surveillance, and elective and emergency AAA repair operations. Input parameters specifically for women were employed. The model was run for 10 million women, with parameter uncertainty addressed by probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. SETTING: Population screening in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 65 years, followed up to the age of 95 years. INTERVENTIONS: Invitation to ultrasound screening, followed by surveillance for small AAAs and elective surgical repair for large AAAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of operations undertaken, AAA-related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), NHS costs and cost-effectiveness with annual discounting. DATA SOURCES: AAA surveillance data, National Vascular Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, trials of elective and emergency AAA surgery, and the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP). REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of AAA prevalence and, for elective operations, suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair, non-intervention rates, operative mortality and literature reviews for other parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of AAAs (aortic diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm) was estimated as 0.43% in women aged 65 years and 1.15% at age 75 years. The corresponding attendance rates following invitation to screening were estimated as 73% and 62%, respectively. The base-case model adopted the same age at screening (65 years), definition of an AAA (diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm), surveillance intervals (1 year for AAAs with diameter of 3.0-4.4 cm, 3 months for AAAs with diameter of 4.5-5.4 cm) and AAA diameter for consideration of surgery (5.5 cm) as in NAAASP for men. Per woman invited to screening, the estimated gain in QALYs was 0.00110, and the incremental cost was £33.99. This gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,000 per QALY gained. The corresponding incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained was -£12.03 (95% uncertainty interval -£27.88 to £22.12). Almost no sensitivity analyses brought the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained; an exception was doubling the AAA prevalence to 0.86%, which resulted in an ICER of £13,000. Alternative screening options (increasing the screening age to 70 years, lowering the threshold for considering surgery to diameters of 5.0 cm or 4.5 cm, lowering the diameter defining an AAA in women to 2.5 cm and lengthening the surveillance intervals for the smallest AAAs) did not bring the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained when considered either singly or in combination. LIMITATIONS: The model for women was not directly validated against empirical data. Some parameters were poorly estimated, potentially lacking relevance or unavailable for women. CONCLUSION: The accepted criteria for a population-based AAA screening programme in women are not currently met. FUTURE WORK: A large-scale study is needed of the exact aortic size distribution for women screened at relevant ages. The DES model can be adapted to evaluate screening options in men. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020444 and CRD42016043227. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study. METHODS: We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs. FINDINGS: AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life. INTERPRETATION: By UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-Effectiveness of Facilitated Access to a Self-Management Website, Compared to Usual Care, for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes): Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the most common long-term conditions, and costs health services approximately 10% of their total budget. Active self-management by patients improves outcomes and reduces health service costs. While the existing evidence suggested that uptake of self-management education was low, the development of internet-based technology might improve the situation. OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost-effectiveness of a Web-based self-management program for people with type 2 diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) compared to usual care. METHODS: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, from a National Health Service and personal and social services perspective, based on data collected from a multi-center, two-arm individually randomized controlled trial over 12 months. Adults aged 18 or over with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and registered with the 21 participating general practices (primary care) in England, UK, were approached. People who were unable to provide informed consent or to use the intervention, terminally ill, or currently participating in a trial of an alternative self-management intervention, were excluded. The participants were then randomized to either usual care plus HeLP-Diabetes, an interactive, theoretically-informed Web-based self-management program, or to usual care plus access to a comparator website containing basic information only. The participants' intervention costs and wider health care resource use were collected as well as two health-related quality of life measures: the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) Scale and EQ-5D-3L. EQ-5D-3L was then used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat, using multiple imputation to handle the missing data. RESULTS: In total, 374 participants were randomized, with 185 in the intervention group and 189 in the control group. The primary analysis showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £58 (95% CI -411 to 587) per unit improvement on PAID scale and £5550 (95% CI -21,077 to 52,356) per QALY gained by HeLP-Diabetes, compared to the control. The complete case analysis showed less cost-effectiveness and higher uncertainty with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £116 (95% CI -1299 to 1690) per unit improvement on PAID scale and £18,500 (95% CI -203,949 to 190,267) per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed an 87% probability of cost-effectiveness at £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The one-way sensitivity analyses estimated 363 users would be needed to use the intervention for it to become less costly than usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitated access to HeLP-Diabetes is cost-effective, compared to usual care, under the recommended threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY by National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 02123133; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN02123133 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zqjhmn00).

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40-50% reported for open surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding. SETTING: Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being -£1186 (95% CI -£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was -£2329 (95% CI -£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of -£2605 (95% CI -£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be 'dominant'. LIMITATIONS: Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) randomised controlled trials: long-term follow-up and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Short-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair (OR) of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is soon lost. Survival benefit of EVAR was unclear at follow-up to 10 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term efficacy of EVAR against OR in patients deemed fit and suitable for both procedures (EVAR trial 1; EVAR-1); and against no intervention in patients unfit for OR (EVAR trial 2; EVAR-2). To appraise the long-term significance of type II endoleak and define criteria for intervention. DESIGN: Two national, multicentre randomised controlled trials: EVAR-1 and EVAR-2. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 37 hospitals in the UK between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged ≥ 60 years with an aneurysm of ≥ 5.5 cm (as identified by computed tomography scanning), anatomically suitable and fit for OR were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to either EVAR (n = 626) or OR (n = 626) in EVAR-1 using computer-generated sequences at the trial hub. Patients considered unfit were randomly assigned to EVAR (n = 197) or no intervention (n = 207) in EVAR-2. There was no blinding. INTERVENTIONS: EVAR, OR or no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end points were total and aneurysm-related mortality until mid-2015 for both trials. Secondary outcomes for EVAR-1 were reinterventions, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In EVAR-1, over a mean of 12.7 years (standard deviation 1.5 years; maximum 15.8 years), we recorded 9.3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8.9 deaths per 100 person-years in the OR group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.27; p = 0.14]. At 0-6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02 for total mortality; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.93 for aneurysm-related mortality; p = 0.031), but beyond 8 years of follow-up patients in the OR group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.56, p = 0.048 for total mortality; HR 5.82, 95% CI 1.64 to 20.65, p = 0.0064 for aneurysm-related mortality). The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was mainly attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture, with increased cancer mortality also observed in the EVAR group. Overall, aneurysm reintervention rates were higher in the EVAR group than in the OR group, 4.1 and 1.7 per 100 person-years, respectively (p < 0.001), with reinterventions occurring throughout follow-up. The mean difference in costs over 14 years was £3798 (95% CI £2338 to £5258). Economic modelling based on the outcomes of the EVAR-1 trial showed that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime exceeds conventional thresholds used in the UK. In EVAR-2, patients died at the same rate in both groups, but there was suggestion of lower aneurysm mortality in those who actually underwent EVAR. Type II endoleak itself is not associated with a higher rate of mortality. LIMITATIONS: Devices used were implanted between 1999 and 2004. Newer devices might have better results. Later follow-up imaging declined, particularly for OR patients. Methodology to capture reinterventions changed mainly to record linkage through the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative data set from 2009. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR has an early survival benefit but an inferior late survival benefit compared with OR, which needs to be addressed by lifelong surveillance of EVAR and reintervention if necessary. EVAR does not prolong life in patients unfit for OR. Type II endoleak alone is relatively benign. FUTURE WORK: To find easier ways to monitor sac expansion to trigger timely reintervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55703451. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the results will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening.

Markov models are often used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new healthcare interventions but they are sometimes not flexible enough to allow accurate modeling or investigation of alternative scenarios and policies. A Markov model previously demonstrated that a one-off invitation to screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for men aged 65 y in the UK and subsequent follow-up of identified AAAs was likely to be highly cost-effective at thresholds commonly adopted in the UK (£20,000 to £30,000 per quality adjusted life-year). However, new evidence has emerged and the decision problem has evolved to include exploration of the circumstances under which AAA screening may be cost-effective, which the Markov model is not easily able to address. A new model to handle this more complex decision problem was needed, and the case of AAA screening thus provides an illustration of the relative merits of Markov models and discrete event simulation (DES) models. An individual-level DES model was built using the R programming language to reflect possible events and pathways of individuals invited to screening v. those not invited. The model was validated against key events and cost-effectiveness, as observed in a large, randomized trial. Different screening protocol scenarios were investigated to demonstrate the flexibility of the DES. The case of AAA screening highlights the benefits of DES, particularly in the context of screening studies.

Natriuretic peptides and integrated risk assessment for cardiovascular disease: an individual-participant-data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases focus on prediction of coronary heart disease and stroke. We assessed whether or not measurement of N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration could enable a more integrated approach than at present by predicting heart failure and enhancing coronary heart disease and stroke risk assessment. METHODS: In this individual-participant-data meta-analysis, we generated and harmonised individual-participant data from relevant prospective studies via both de-novo NT-proBNP concentration measurement of stored samples and collection of data from studies identified through a systematic search of the literature (PubMed, Scientific Citation Index Expanded, and Embase) for articles published up to Sept 4, 2014, using search terms related to natriuretic peptide family members and the primary outcomes, with no language restrictions. We calculated risk ratios and measures of risk discrimination and reclassification across predicted 10 year risk categories (ie, <5%, 5% to <7·5%, and ≥7·5%), adding assessment of NT-proBNP concentration to that of conventional risk factors (ie, age, sex, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, and total and HDL cholesterol concentrations). Primary outcomes were the combination of coronary heart disease and stroke, and the combination of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. FINDINGS: We recorded 5500 coronary heart disease, 4002 stroke, and 2212 heart failure outcomes among 95 617 participants without a history of cardiovascular disease in 40 prospective studies. Risk ratios (for a comparison of the top third vs bottom third of NT-proBNP concentrations, adjusted for conventional risk factors) were 1·76 (95% CI 1·56-1·98) for the combination of coronary heart disease and stroke and 2·00 (1·77-2·26) for the combination of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Addition of information about NT-proBNP concentration to a model containing conventional risk factors was associated with a C-index increase of 0·012 (0·010-0·014) and a net reclassification improvement of 0·027 (0·019-0·036) for the combination of coronary heart disease and stroke and a C-index increase of 0·019 (0·016-0·022) and a net reclassification improvement of 0·028 (0·019-0·038) for the combination of coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. INTERPRETATION: In people without baseline cardiovascular disease, NT-proBNP concentration assessment strongly predicted first-onset heart failure and augmented coronary heart disease and stroke prediction, suggesting that NT-proBNP concentration assessment could be used to integrate heart failure into cardiovascular disease primary prevention. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, Austrian Science Fund, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, European Research Council, and European Commission Framework Programme 7.

HeLP-Diabetes: randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is common, affecting nearly 400 million people worldwide. Achieving good health for people with T2DM requires active self-management; however, uptake of self-management education is poor, and there is an urgent need to find better, more acceptable, cost-effective methods of providing self-management support. Web-based self-management support has many potential benefits for patients and health services. The aim of this trial is to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based self-management support programme for people with T2DM. METHODS: This will be a multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial in primary care, recruiting adults with T2DM who are registered with participating general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to receive either an evidence-based, theoretically informed, web-based self-management programme for people with T2DM which addresses medical, emotional, and role management, called Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) or a simple information website. The joint primary outcomes are glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and diabetes-related distress, measured by the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include cardiovascular risk factors, depression and anxiety, and self-efficacy for self-management of diabetes. Health economic data include health service use, costs due to the intervention, and EQ-5D for calculation of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYS). Data will be collected at baseline, 3 months and 12 months, with the primary endpoint at 12 months. Practice nurses, blinded to patient allocation, collect clinical data; patients complete online questionnaires for patient reported measures. A sample size of 350 recruited participants allows for attrition of up to 15 % and will provide 90 % power of detecting at a 5 % significance level a true average difference in the PAID score of 4.0 and 0.25 % change in HbA1c (both small effect sizes). The analysis will follow a pre-specified analysis plan, based on comparing the groups as randomised (intention-to-treat). DISCUSSION: The findings of this trial are likely to be of interest to policy makers, clinicians, and commissioners, all of whom are actively seeking additional forms of self-management support for people with T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Trial Registration number is ISRCTN 02123133 ; date of registration 14.2.13.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of brief advice for excessive alcohol consumption among people attending sexual health clinics: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of brief advice for excessive alcohol consumption among people who attend sexual health clinics. METHODS: Two-arm, parallel group, assessor blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. 802 people aged 19 years or over who attended one of three sexual health clinics and were drinking excessively were randomised to either brief advice or control treatment. Brief advice consisted of feedback on alcohol and health, written information and an offer of an appointment with an Alcohol Health Worker. Control participants received a leaflet on health and lifestyle. The primary outcome was mean weekly alcohol consumption during the previous 90 days measured 6 months after randomisation. The main secondary outcome was unprotected sex during this period. RESULTS: Among the 402 randomised to brief advice, 397 (99%) received it. The adjusted mean difference in alcohol consumption at 6 months was -2.33 units per week (95% CI -4.69 to 0.03, p=0.053) among those in the active compared to the control arm of the trial. Unprotected sex was reported by 154 (53%) of those who received brief advice, and 178 (59%) controls (adjusted OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25, p=0.496). There were no significant differences in costs between study groups at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of universal screening and brief advice for excessive alcohol use among people attending sexual health clinics does not result in clinically important reductions in alcohol consumption or provide a cost-effective use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 99963322.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief intervention for excessive alcohol consumption among people attending sexual health clinics: a randomised controlled trial (SHEAR).

BACKGROUND: Excessive use of alcohol is associated with poor sexual health, but the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief alcohol intervention in this setting has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects and cost-effectiveness of brief intervention for excessive alcohol consumption among people who attend sexual health clinics. DESIGN: A two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote telephone randomisation service using permuted blocks, stratified by clinic. SETTING: Study participants were recruited from three sexual health clinics in central and west London. PARTICIPANTS: For inclusion, potential participants had to be aged ≥ 19 years, drink excessive alcohol according to the Modified-Single Alcohol Screening Question, and be willing to provide written informed consent. We excluded those who were unable to communicate in English sufficiently well to complete the baseline assessment and those who could not provide contact details for the follow-up assessment. INTERVENTIONS: Brief advice was delivered by the treating clinician and comprised feedback on the possible health consequences of excessive drinking, a discussion of whether the participant's clinic attendance was linked to current alcohol use, written information on alcohol and health and an offer of an appointment with an alcohol health worker (AHW). Appointments with AHWs took place either in person or by telephone, lasted up to 30 minutes, and used the 'FRAMES' (Feedback about the adverse effects of alcohol, an emphasis on personal Responsibility for changing drinking behaviour, Advice about alcohol consumption, a Menu of options for further help and advice, an Empathic stance towards the patient and an emphasis on Self-efficacy) approach. Those in the control arm of the trial were offered a copy of a leaflet providing general information on health and lifestyle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed 6 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was mean weekly alcohol consumption during the previous 90 days. The main secondary outcome was unprotected sex during this period. RESULTS: Eight hundred and two people were recruited to the study of whom 592 (74%) were followed up 6 months later. Among 402 participants who were randomised to brief intervention, 397 (99%) received brief advice from the treating clinician and 81 (20%) also received input from an AHW. The adjusted mean difference in alcohol consumption after 6 months was -2.33 units per week [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.69 to 0.03 units per week, p = 0.053] for those in the active arm compared with the control arm. Unprotected sex was reported by 154 (53%) of those who received brief intervention and by 178 (59%) of controls (adjusted odds ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25, p = 0.496). Participants randomised to brief intervention reported drinking a mean of 10.4 units of alcohol per drinking day compared with 9.3 units among control participants (difference 1.10, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.96, p = 0.009). We found no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. Brief intervention (brief advice and input from an AHW) cost on average £12.60 per person to deliver and did not appear to provide a cost-effective use of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of universal screening and brief intervention for excessive alcohol use among people who attend sexual health clinics does not result in clinically important reductions in alcohol consumption or provide a cost-effective use of resources. While people attending sexual health clinics may want to achieve better sexual health, attempts to reduce alcohol consumption may not be seen by them as a necessary means of trying to achieve this aim. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN 99963322. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.