Effectiveness of septoplasty compared to medical management in adults with obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum: the NAIROS RCT.

Background: The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants: A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions: Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results: At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations: COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions: Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Septoplasty is an operation to straighten the septum, which is the partition wall between the nostrils inside the nose. Septoplasty can be used as a treatment for people who have a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose, such as difficulty sleeping and exercising. Medical management (a saltwater spray to clear the nose followed by a nose steroid spray) is an alternative treatment to septoplasty. The Nasal AIRway Obstruction Study (NAIROS) aimed to find out whether septoplasty or medical management is a better treatment for people with a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose. We recruited 378 patients with at least moderately severe nose symptoms from 17 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to take part in the NAIROS. Participants were randomly put into one of two groups: septoplasty or medical management. Participants' nose symptoms were measured both when they joined the study and after 6 months, using a questionnaire called the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items. This questionnaire was chosen because patients reported that it included symptoms that were important to them. Other studies have shown that a 9-point change in the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score is significant. After 6 months, on average, people in the septoplasty group improved by 25 points, whereas people in the medical management group improved by 5 points. We saw improvement after septoplasty among patients with moderate symptoms, and among those with severe symptoms. Most patients who we spoke to after a septoplasty were happy with their treatment, but some would have liked more information about what to expect after their nose surgery. In the short term, septoplasty is more costly than medical management. However, over the longer term, taking into account all the costs and benefits of treatment, suggests that septoplasty would be considered good value for money for the NHS.

Dual bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis study (DIBS): protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, three-arm, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial studying bronchodilators in preventing exacerbations of bronchiectasis.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15988757.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. 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. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted training versus an enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation due to stroke: results from the RATULS randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK: Queen's Hospital, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Northwick Park Hospital, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde; and North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Participants randomised to one of three programmes provided over a 12-week period: robot-assisted training plus usual care; the EULT programme plus usual care or usual care. MAIN ECONOMIC OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean healthcare resource use; costs to the NHS and personal social services in 2018 pounds; utility scores based on EQ-5D-5L responses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness reported as incremental cost per QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: At 6 months, on average usual care was the least costly option (£3785) followed by EULT (£4451) with robot-assisted training being the most costly (£5387). The mean difference in total costs between the usual care and robot-assisted training groups (£1601) was statistically significant (p<0.001). Mean QALYs were highest for the EULT group (0.23) but no evidence of a difference (p=0.995) was observed between the robot-assisted training (0.21) and usual care groups (0.21). The incremental cost per QALY at 6 months for participants randomised to EULT compared with usual care was £74 100. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that robot-assisted training was unlikely to be cost-effective and that EULT had a 19% chance of being cost-effective at the £20 000 willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Usual care was most likely to be cost-effective at all the WTP values considered in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that neither robot-assisted training nor EULT, as delivered in this trial, were likely to be cost-effective at any of the cost per QALY thresholds considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN69371850.

Robot-assisted training compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care for upper limb functional limitation after stroke: the RATULS three-group RCT.

BACKGROUND: Loss of arm function is common after stroke. Robot-assisted training may improve arm outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted training, compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, observer-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. SETTING: The trial was set in four NHS trial centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years following first stroke, were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: Robot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme comprising repetitive functional task practice, and usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was upper limb functional recovery 'success' (assessed using the Action Research Arm Test) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months were the Action Research Arm Test results, upper limb impairment (measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment), activities of daily living (measured using the Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index), quality of life (measured using the Stroke Impact Scale), resource use costs and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 770 participants were randomised (robot-assisted training, n = 257; enhanced upper limb therapy, n = 259; usual care, n = 254). Upper limb functional recovery 'success' was achieved in the robot-assisted training [103/232 (44%)], enhanced upper limb therapy [118/234 (50%)] and usual care groups [85/203 (42%)]. These differences were not statistically significant; the adjusted odds ratios were as follows: robot-assisted training versus usual care, 1.2 (98.33% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.0); enhanced upper limb therapy versus usual care, 1.5 (98.33% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.5); and robot-assisted training versus enhanced upper limb therapy, 0.8 (98.33% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3). The robot-assisted training group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale) than the usual care group at 3 and 6 months. The enhanced upper limb therapy group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale), better mobility (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale mobility domain) and better performance in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the usual care group, at 3 months. The robot-assisted training group performed less well in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the enhanced upper limb therapy group at 3 months. No other differences were clinically important and statistically significant. Participants found the robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy group programmes acceptable. Neither intervention, as provided in this trial, was cost-effective at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence willingness-to-pay thresholds for a quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted training did not improve upper limb function compared with usual care. Although robot-assisted training improved upper limb impairment, this did not translate into improvements in other outcomes. Enhanced upper limb therapy resulted in potentially important improvements on upper limb impairment, in performance of activities of daily living, and in mobility. Neither intervention was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to find ways to translate the improvements in upper limb impairment seen with robot-assisted training into improvements in upper limb function and activities of daily living. Innovations to make rehabilitation programmes more cost-effective are required. LIMITATIONS: Pragmatic inclusion criteria led to the recruitment of some participants with little prospect of recovery. The attrition rate was higher in the usual care group than in the robot-assisted training or enhanced upper limb therapy groups, and differential attrition is a potential source of bias. Obtaining accurate information about the usual care that participants were receiving was a challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69371850. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people who have arm weakness following a stroke feel that insufficient attention is paid by rehabilitation services to recovery of their arm. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear how best to provide rehabilitation to optimise recovery, but robot-assisted training and therapy programmes that focus on practising functional tasks are promising and require further evaluation. The Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke (RATULS) trial evaluated three approaches to rehabilitation for people with moderate or severe difficulty using their arm. These approaches were robot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme based on repetitive practice of functional tasks and usual care. Robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy programme were provided in an outpatient setting for 45 minutes per session, three times per week, for 12 weeks, in addition to usual care. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system was selected as it was felt to be the best available technology. The participant sits at a table, places their affected arm onto the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus arm support and attempts to move their arm to play a game on the computer screen. Movements are assisted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus if the patient cannot perform the movements themselves. The results of the RATULS trial show that robot-assisted training did not result in additional improvement in stroke survivors' arm use when compared with the enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care. Stroke survivors who received enhanced upper limb therapy experienced meaningful improvements in undertaking activities of daily living, when compared with those participants who received either robot-assisted training or usual care. Participants who received enhanced upper limb therapy also experienced benefits in their mobility, compared with usual care participants. Participants and therapists found both therapies acceptable, and described various benefits. A health economic analysis found that neither robot-assisted training nor the enhanced upper limb therapy programme was a cost-effective treatment for the NHS.

Economic evaluation of surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: a cost-utility and value of information analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) are common conditions that can have a negative impact on the quality of life of patients and serious cost implications for healthcare providers. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of nine different surgical interventions for treatment of SUI and stress-predominant MUI from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective in the UK. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nine surgical interventions. The model was informed by undertaking a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and network meta-analysis. The main clinical parameters in the model were the cure and incidence rates of complications after different interventions. The outcomes from the model were expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. In addition, expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analyses were conducted to quantify the main uncertainties facing decision-makers. RESULTS: The base-case results suggest that retropubic mid-urethral sling (retro-MUS) is the most cost-effective surgical intervention over a 10-year and lifetime time horizon. The probabilistic results show that retro-MUS and traditional sling are the interventions with the highest probability of being cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds over a lifetime time horizon. The value of information analysis results suggest that the largest value appears to be in removing uncertainty around the incidence rates of complications, the relative treatment effectiveness and health utility values. CONCLUSIONS: Although retro-MUS appears, at this stage, to be a cost-effective intervention, research is needed on possible long-term complications of all surgical treatments to provide reassurance of safety, or earlier warning of unanticipated adverse effects. The value of information analysis supports the need, as a first step, for further research to improve our knowledge of the actual incidence of complications.

Nasal Airway Obstruction Study (NAIROS): a phase III, open-label, mixed-methods, multicentre randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management of a septal deviation with nasal obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Septoplasty (surgery to straighten a deviation in the nasal septum) is a frequently performed operation worldwide, with approximately 250,000 performed annually in the US and 22,000 in the UK. Most septoplasties aim to improve diurnal and nocturnal nasal obstruction. The evidence base for septoplasty clinical effectiveness is hitherto very limited. AIMS: To establish, and inform guidance for, the best management strategy for individuals with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated septum. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, mixed-methods, open label, randomised controlled trial of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and a reduced nasal airway. Eligible patients will have septal deflection visible at nasendoscopy and a nasal symptom score ≥ 30 on the NOSE questionnaire. Surgical treatment comprises septoplasty with or without reduction of the inferior nasal turbinate on the anatomically wider side of the nose. Medical management comprises a nasal saline spray followed by a fluorinated steroid spray daily for six months. The recruitment target is 378 patients, recruited from up to 17 sites across Scotland, England and Wales. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by gender and severity (NOSE score). Participants will be followed up for 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the total SNOT-22 score at 6 months. Clinical and economic outcomes will be modelled against baseline severity (NOSE scale) to inform clinical decision-making. The study includes a recruitment enhancement process, and an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The NAIROS trial will evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for adults with a deviated septum and symptoms of nasal blockage. Identifying those individuals most likely to benefit from surgery should enable more efficient and effective clinical decision-making, and avoid unnecessary operations where there is low likelihood of patient benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2017-000893-12, ISRCTN: 16168569. Registered on 24 March 2017.

Implementing participation-focused services: A study to develop the Method for using Audit and Feedback in Participation Implementation (MAPi).

BACKGROUND: It is widely agreed that children's services should use participation-focused practice, but that implementation is challenging. This paper describes a method for using audit and feedback, an evidence-based knowledge translation strategy, to support implementation of participation-focused practice in front-line services, to identify barriers to implementation, and to enable international benchmarking of implementation and barriers. METHOD: Best-practice guidelines for using audit and feedback were followed. For audit, participation-focused practice was specified as clinicians' three observable behaviours: (a) targets participation outcomes; (b) involves child/parent in setting participation outcomes; and (c) measures progress towards participation outcomes. For barrier identification, the Theoretical Domains Framework Questionnaire (TDFQ) of known implementation barriers was used. A cycle of audit and barrier identification was piloted in three services (n = 25 clinicians) in a large U.K. healthcare trust. From each clinician, up to five randomly sampled case note sets were audited (total n = 122), and the clinicians were invited to complete the TDFQ. For feedback, data on the behaviours and barriers were shared visually and verbally with managers and clinicians to inform action planning. RESULTS: A Method for using Audit and feedback for Participation implementation (MAPi) was developed. The MAPi audit template captured clinicians' practices: Clinicians targeted participation in 37/122 (30.3%) of the sampled cases; involved child/parent in 16/122 (13.1%); and measured progress in 24/122 (19.7%). Barriers identified from the TDFQ and fed back to managers and clinicians included clinicians' skills in participation-focused behaviours (median = 3.00-5.00, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.25-6.00), social processes (median = 4.00, IQR = 3.00-5.00), and behavioural regulation (median = 4.00-5.00, IQR = 3.00-6.00). CONCLUSIONS: MAPi provides a practical, off-the-shelf method for front-line services to investigate and support their implementation of participation-focused practice. Furthermore, as a shared, consistent template, MAPi provides a method for generating cumulative and comparable, across-services evidence about levels and trends of implementation and about enduring barriers to implementation, to inform future implementation strategies.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of uterotonic agents for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Several uterotonic options exist for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); hence, cost-effectiveness is an important decision-making criterion affecting uterotonic choice. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness of uterotonics for PPH prevention to support a WHO guideline update. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched major databases from 1980 to June 2018 and the National Health Services Economic Evaluation (NHS EED) database from inception (1995) to March 2015 for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included comparative economic evaluations, cost-utility analyses, and resource-utilization studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed studies and extracted data organized by birth mode and setting. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies across all income categories that compared misoprostol versus no uterotonic (five studies) or versus oxytocin (one study), carbetocin versus oxytocin (eight studies), and one study comparing numerous uterotonics. In specific low-resource contexts, we found reasonably good evidence that misoprostol was cost-effective compared with no uterotonic. In the context of cesarean delivery, carbetocin was more cost favorable than oxytocin but certainty of this evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of various uterotonic agents was not generalizable. As the number of competing uterotonics increases, rigorous economic evaluations including contextual factors are needed.

Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care. METHODS: RATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Robot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: the ESTER systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence in women is a distressing condition that restricts quality of life and results in a large economic burden to both the NHS and women themselves. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women and explore women's preferences. DESIGN: An evidence synthesis, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and an economic decision model, with a value-of-information (VOI) analysis. Nine surgical interventions were compared. Previous Cochrane reviews for each were identified and updated to include additional studies. Systematic review methods were applied. The outcomes of interest were 'cure' and 'improvement'. Both a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted for all available surgical comparisons. A DCE was undertaken to assess the preferences of women for treatment outcomes. An economic model assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative surgeries and a VOI analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data from 175 studies were included in the effectiveness review. The majority of included studies were rated as being at high or unclear risk of bias across all risk-of-bias domains. The NMA, which included 120 studies that reported data on 'cure' or 'improvement', showed that retropubic mid-urethral sling (MUS), transobturator MUS, traditional sling and open colposuspension were more effective than other surgical procedures for both primary outcomes. The results for other interventions were variable. In general, rate of tape and mesh exposure was higher after transobturator MUS than after retropubic MUS or single-incision sling, whereas the rate of tape or mesh erosion/extrusion was similar between transobturator MUS and retropubic MUS. The results of the DCE, in which 789 women completed an anonymous online questionnaire, indicate that women tend to prefer surgical treatments associated with no pain or mild chronic pain and shorter length of hospital stay as well as those treatments that have a smaller risk for urinary symptoms to reoccur after surgery. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, retropubic MUS is, on average, the least costly and most effective surgery. However, the high level of uncertainty makes robust estimates difficult to ascertain. The VOI analysis highlighted that further research around the incidence rates of complications would be of most value. LIMITATIONS: Overall, the quality of the clinical evidence was low, with limited data available for the assessment of complications. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust evidence and significant uncertainty around some parameters in the economic modelling. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive assessment of published evidence for the treatment of SUI. There is some evidence that retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS and traditional sling are effective in the short to medium term and that retropubic MUS is cost-effective in the medium to long term. The VOI analysis highlights the value of further research to reduce the uncertainty around the incidence rates of complications. There is a need to obtain robust clinical data in future work, particularly around long-term complication rates. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016049339. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Urinary incontinence, defined as involuntary leakage of urine, is a common condition that varies in type and severity and can have a huge impact on the quality of life of women. The aim of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of nine surgical operations for stress urinary incontinence in women and assess the need for further research. Women's preferences for surgery were also explored. Currently there is no agreement among decision-makers, doctors and patients about which of the available surgical operations is best. Based on previous Cochrane reviews, the effects and safety of each operation were systematically reviewed and analysed. Their cost-effectiveness and the value of conducting further research were also evaluated. To better understand the preference of women, an online survey containing a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Finally, patient representatives were consulted to help us to understand the consequences of the findings from a patient's perspective. The evidence on surgical operations was predominantly short to medium term (up to 12 months). This analysis found that the quality of the evidence varied, with the majority of trials being subject to high or unclear risk of bias, making the conclusions that can be drawn less robust. The findings of the clinical evidence review suggest that retropubic sling procedures, transobturator sling procedures and traditional sling procedures are more effective than other surgical procedures for both 'cure' and 'improvement' of stress urinary incontinence. The results of the economic analyses support these findings, suggesting that retropubic mid-urethral sling is the most cost-effective surgical operation. However, data on complications were lacking, limiting any strong conclusions. The results suggest that there is value in undertaking further research to reduce the uncertainty around the medium- to long-term complications of all surgical treatments and this was reflected in patients' views.

Continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection in adults who perform clean intermittent self-catheterisation: the AnTIC RCT.

BACKGROUND: People carrying out clean intermittent self-catheterisation (CISC) to empty their bladder often suffer repeated urinary tract infections (UTIs). Continuous once-daily, low-dose antibiotic treatment (antibiotic prophylaxis) is commonly advised but knowledge of its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent UTIs in people who perform CISC. DESIGN: Parallel-group, open-label, patient-randomised 12-month trial of allocated intervention with 3-monthly follow-up. Outcome assessors were blind to allocation. SETTING: UK NHS, with recruitment of patients from 51 sites. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and four adults performing CISC and predicted to continue for ≥ 12 months who had suffered at least two UTIs in the previous year or had been hospitalised for a UTI in the previous year. INTERVENTIONS: A central randomisation system using random block allocation set by an independent statistician allocated participants to the experimental group [once-daily oral antibiotic prophylaxis using either 50 mg of nitrofurantoin, 100 mg of trimethoprim (Kent Pharmaceuticals, Ashford, UK) or 250 mg of cefalexin (Sandoz Ltd, Holzkirchen, Germany); n = 203] or the control group of no prophylaxis (n = 201), both for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was relative frequency of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated UTI. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by cost per UTI avoided. The secondary measures were microbiologically proven UTI, antimicrobial resistance, health status and participants' attitudes to antibiotic use. RESULTS: The frequency of symptomatic antibiotic-treated UTI was reduced by 48% using prophylaxis [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.61; n = 361]. Reduction in microbiologically proven UTI was similar (IRR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; n = 361). Absolute reduction in UTI episodes over 12 months was from a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-4) in the no-prophylaxis group (n = 180) to 1 (0-2) in the prophylaxis group (n = 181). The results were unchanged by adjustment for days at risk of UTI and the presence of factors giving higher risk of UTI. Development of antimicrobial resistance was seen more frequently in pathogens isolated from urine and Escherichia coli from perianal swabs in participants allocated to antibiotic prophylaxis. The use of prophylaxis incurred an extra cost of £99 to prevent one UTI (not including costs related to increased antimicrobial resistance). The emotional and practical burden of CISC and UTI influenced well-being, but health status measured over 12 months was similar between groups and did not deteriorate significantly during UTI. Participants were generally unconcerned about using antibiotics, including the possible development of antimicrobial resistance. LIMITATIONS: Lack of blinding may have led participants in each group to use different thresholds to trigger reporting and treatment-seeking for UTI. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large randomised trial, conducted in accordance with best practice, demonstrate clear benefit for antibiotic prophylaxis in terms of reducing the frequency of UTI for people carrying out CISC. Antibiotic prophylaxis use appears safe for individuals over 12 months, but the emergence of resistant urinary pathogens may prejudice longer-term management of recurrent UTI and is a public health concern. Future work includes longer-term studies of antimicrobial resistance and studies of non-antibiotic preventative strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67145101 and EudraCT 2013-002556-32. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 22, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Robot Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke (RATULS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Loss of arm function is a common and distressing consequence of stroke. We describe the protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine whether robot-assisted training improves upper limb function following stroke. METHODS/DESIGN: Study design: a pragmatic, three-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, economic analysis and process evaluation. SETTING: NHS stroke services. PARTICIPANTS: adults with acute or chronic first-ever stroke (1 week to 5 years post stroke) causing moderate to severe upper limb functional limitation. Randomisation groups: 1. Robot-assisted training using the InMotion robotic gym system for 45 min, three times/week for 12 weeks 2. Enhanced upper limb therapy for 45 min, three times/week for 12 weeks 3. Usual NHS care in accordance with local clinical practice Randomisation: individual participant randomisation stratified by centre, time since stroke, and severity of upper limb impairment. PRIMARY OUTCOME: upper limb function measured by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 3 months post randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: upper limb impairment (Fugl-Meyer Test), activities of daily living (Barthel ADL Index), quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale, EQ-5D-5L), resource use, cost per quality-adjusted life year and adverse events, at 3 and 6 months. Blinding: outcomes are undertaken by blinded assessors. Economic analysis: micro-costing and economic evaluation of interventions compared to usual NHS care. A within-trial analysis, with an economic model will be used to extrapolate longer-term costs and outcomes. Process evaluation: semi-structured interviews with participants and professionals to seek their views and experiences of the rehabilitation that they have received or provided, and factors affecting the implementation of the trial. SAMPLE SIZE: allowing for 10% attrition, 720 participants provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in successful outcome between each of the treatment pairs. Successful outcome definition: baseline ARAT 0-7 must improve by 3 or more points; baseline ARAT 8-13 improve by 4 or more points; baseline ARAT 14-19 improve by 5 or more points; baseline ARAT 20-39 improve by 6 or more points. DISCUSSION: The results from this trial will determine whether robot-assisted training improves upper limb function post stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, identifier: ISRCTN69371850 . Registered 4 October 2013.

Cognitive stimulation therapy as a sustainable intervention for dementia in sub-Saharan Africa: feasibility and clinical efficacy using a stepped-wedge design.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a psychosocial group-based intervention for dementia shown to improve cognition and quality of life with a similar efficacy to cholinesterase inhibitors. Since CST can be delivered by non-specialist healthcare workers, it has potential for use in low-resource environments, such as sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We aimed to assess the feasibility and clinical effectiveness of CST in rural Tanzania using a stepped-wedge design. METHODS: Participants and their carers were recruited through a community dementia screening program. Inclusion criteria were DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia of mild/moderate severity following detailed assessment. No participant had a previous diagnosis of dementia and none were taking a cholinesterase inhibitor. Primary outcomes related to the feasibility of conducting CST in this setting. Key clinical outcomes were changes in quality of life and cognition. The assessing team was blind to treatment group membership. RESULTS: Thirty four participants with mild/moderate dementia were allocated to four CST groups. Attendance rates were high (85%) and we were able to complete all 14 sessions for each group within the seven week timeframe. Substantial improvements in cognition, anxiety, and behavioral symptoms were noted following CST, with smaller improvements in quality of life measures. The number needed to treat was two for a four-point cognitive (adapted Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive) improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This intervention has the potential to be low-cost, sustainable, and adaptable to other settings across SSA, particularly if it can be delivered by non-specialist health workers.

Parental Preferences for the Organization of Preschool Vaccination Programs Including Financial Incentives: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Objective: To establish preferences of parents and guardians of preschool children for the organization of preschool vaccination services, including financial incentives. Design: An online discrete choice experiment. Participants: Parents and guardians of preschool children (up to age 5 years) who were (n = 259) and were not (n = 262) classified as at high risk of incompletely vaccinating their children. High risk of incomplete vaccination was defined as any of the following: aged less than 20 years, single parents, living in one of the 20% most deprived areas in England, had a preschool child with a disability, or had more than three children. Main Outcome Measures: Participant preferences expressed as positive (utility) or negative (disutility) on eight attributes and levels describing the organization of preschool vaccination programs. Results: There was no difference in preference for parental financial incentives compared to no incentive in parents "not at high risk" of incomplete vaccination. Parents who were "at high risk" expressed utility for cash incentives. Parents "at high risk" of incomplete vaccination expressed utility for information on the risks and benefits of vaccinations to be provided as numbers rather than charts or pictures. Both groups preferred universally available, rather than targeted, incentives. Utility was identified for shorter waiting times, and there were variable preferences for who delivered vaccinations. Conclusions: Cash incentives for preschool vaccinations in England would be welcomed by parents who are "at high risk" of incompletely vaccinating their children. Further work is required on the optimal mode and form of presenting probabilistic information on vaccination to parents/guardians, including preferences on mandatory vaccination schemes.

Acceptability of Parental Financial Incentives and Quasi-Mandatory Interventions for Preschool Vaccinations: Triangulation of Findings from Three Linked Studies.

BACKGROUND: Childhood vaccinations are a core component of public health programmes globally. Recent measles outbreaks in the UK and USA have prompted debates about new ways to increase uptake of childhood vaccinations. Parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions (e.g. restricting entry to educational settings to fully vaccinated children) have been successfully used to increase uptake of childhood vaccinations in developing countries, but there is limited evidence of effectiveness in developed countries. Even if confirmed to be effective, widespread implementation of these interventions is dependent on acceptability to parents, professionals and other stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (n = 11 studies included), a qualitative study with parents (n = 91) and relevant professionals (n = 24), and an on-line survey with embedded discrete choice experiment with parents (n = 521) exploring acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations. Here we use Triangulation Protocol to synthesise findings from the three studies. RESULTS: There was a consistent recognition that incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions could be effective, particularly in more disadvantaged groups. Universal incentives were consistently preferred to targeted ones, but relative preferences for quasi-mandatory interventions and universal incentives varied between studies. The qualitative work revealed a consistent belief that financial incentives were not considered an appropriate motivation for vaccinating children. The costs of financial incentive interventions appeared particularly salient and there were consistent concerns in the qualitative work that incentives did not represent the best use of resources for promoting preschool vaccinations. Various suggestions for improving delivery of the current UK vaccination programme as an alternative to incentives and quasi-mandates were made. CONCLUSIONS: Parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions for increasing uptake of preschool vaccinations do not currently attract widespread enthusiastic support in the UK; but some potential benefits of these approaches are recognised.

Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Healthy behaviours are important determinants of health and disease, but many people find it difficult to perform these behaviours. Systematic reviews support the use of personal financial incentives to encourage healthy behaviours. There is concern that financial incentives may be unacceptable to the public, those delivering services and policymakers, but this has been poorly studied. Without widespread acceptability, financial incentives are unlikely to be widely implemented. We sought to answer two questions: what are the relative preferences of UK adults for attributes of financial incentives for healthy behaviours? Do preferences vary according to the respondents' socio-demographic characteristics? METHODS: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment. Participants were adult members of a market research panel living in the UK selected using quota sampling. Preferences were examined for financial incentives for: smoking cessation, regular physical activity, attendance for vaccination, and attendance for screening. Attributes of interest (and their levels) were: type of incentive (none, cash, shopping vouchers or lottery tickets); value of incentive (a continuous variable); schedule of incentive (same value each week, or value increases as behaviour change is sustained); other information provided (none, written information, face-to-face discussion, or both); and recipients (all eligible individuals, people living in low-income households, or pregnant women). RESULTS: Cash or shopping voucher incentives were preferred as much as, or more than, no incentive in all cases. Lower value incentives and those offered to all eligible individuals were preferred. Preferences for additional information provided alongside incentives varied between behaviours. Younger participants and men were more likely to prefer incentives. There were no clear differences in preference according to educational attainment. CONCLUSIONS: Cash or shopping voucher-type financial incentives for healthy behaviours are not necessarily less acceptable than no incentives to UK adults.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of STeroids Or Pentoxifylline for Alcoholic Hepatitis (STOPAH): a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is a distinct presentation of alcoholic liver disease arising in patients who have been drinking to excess for prolonged periods, which is characterised by jaundice and liver failure. Severe disease is associated with high short-term mortality. Prednisolone and pentoxifylline (PTX) are recommended in guidelines for treatment of severe AH, but trials supporting their use have given heterogeneous results and controversy persists about their benefit. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of STeroids Or Pentoxifylline for Alcoholic Hepatitis trial was to resolve the clinical dilemma on the use of prednisolone or PTX. DESIGN: The trial was a randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial, multicentre design. SETTING: Sixty-five gastroenterology and hepatology inpatient units across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of AH who had a Maddrey's discriminant function value of ≥ 32 were randomised into four arms: A, placebo/placebo; B, placebo/prednisolone; C, PTX/placebo; and D, PTX/prednisolone. Of the 5234 patients screened for the trial, 1103 were randomised and after withdrawals, 1053 were available for primary end-point analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Those allocated to prednisolone were given 40 mg daily for 28 days and those allocated to PTX were given 400 mg three times per day for 28 days. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure was mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included mortality or liver transplant at 90 days and at 1 year. Rates of recidivism among survivors and the impact of recidivism on mortality were assessed. RESULTS: At 28 days, in arm A, 45 of 269 (16.7%) patients died; in arm B, 38 of 266 (14.3%) died; in arm C, 50 of 258 (19.4%) died; and in arm D, 35 of 260 (13.5%) died. For PTX, the odds ratio for 28-day mortality was 1.07 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.40; p = 0.686)] and for prednisolone the odds ratio was 0.72 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; p = 0.056). In the logistic regression analysis, accounting for indices of disease severity and prognosis, the odds ratio for 28-day mortality in the prednisolone-treated group was 0.61 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; p = 0.015). At 90 days and 1 year there were no significant differences in mortality rates between the treatment groups. Serious infections occurred in 13% of patients treated with prednisolone compared with 7% of controls (p = 0.002). At the 90-day follow-up, 45% of patients reported being completely abstinent, 9% reported drinking within safety limits and 33% had an unknown level of alcohol consumption. At 1 year, 37% of patients reported being completely abstinent, 10% reported drinking within safety limits and 39% had an unknown level of alcohol consumption. Only 22% of patients had attended alcohol rehabilitation treatment at 90 days and 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that prednisolone reduces the risk of mortality at 28 days, but this benefit is not sustained beyond 28 days. PTX had no impact on survival. Future research should focus on interventions to promote abstinence and on treatments that suppress the hepatic inflammation without increasing susceptibility to infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as EudraCT 2009-013897-42 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88782125. 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. 19, No. 102. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The NIHR Clinical Research Network provided research nurse support and the Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre also provided funding.

Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of preschool vaccinations is less than optimal. Financial incentives and quasi-mandatory policies (restricting access to child care or educational settings to fully vaccinated children) have been used to increase uptake internationally, but not in the UK. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence on the effectiveness, acceptability and economic costs and consequences of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing the uptake of preschool vaccinations. DESIGN: Systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment (DCE) with questionnaire. SETTING: Community, health and education settings in England. PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study - parents and carers of preschool children, health and educational professionals. DCE - parents and carers of preschool children identified as 'at high risk' and 'not at high risk' of incompletely vaccinating their children. DATA SOURCES: Qualitative study - focus groups and individual interviews. DCE - online questionnaire. REVIEW METHODS: The review included studies exploring the effectiveness, acceptability or economic costs and consequences of interventions that offered contingent rewards or penalties with real material value for preschool vaccinations, or quasi-mandatory schemes that restricted access to 'universal' services, compared with usual care or no intervention. Electronic database, reference and citation searches were conducted. RESULTS: Systematic review - there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the interventions considered are effective. There was some evidence that the quasi-mandatory interventions were acceptable. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on economic costs and consequences. Qualitative study - there was little appetite for parental financial incentives. Quasi-mandatory schemes were more acceptable. Optimising current services was consistently preferred to the interventions proposed. DCE and questionnaire - universal parental financial incentives were preferred to quasi-mandatory interventions, which were preferred to targeted incentives. Those reporting that they would need an incentive to vaccinate their children completely required around £110. Those who did not felt that the maximum acceptable incentive was around £70. LIMITATIONS: Systematic review - a number of relevant studies were excluded as they did not meet the study design inclusion criteria. Qualitative study - few partially and non-vaccinating parents were recruited. DCE and questionnaire - data were from a convenience sample. CONCLUSIONS: There is little current evidence on the effectiveness or economic costs and consequences of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations. Universal incentives are likely to be more acceptable than targeted ones. Preferences concerning incentives versus quasi-mandatory interventions may depend on the context in which these are elicited. FUTURE WORK: Further evidence is required on (i) the effectiveness and optimal configuration of parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations - if effectiveness is confirmed, further evidence is required on how to communicate this to stakeholders and the impact on acceptability; and (ii) the acceptability of parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations to members of the population who are not parents of preschool children or relevant health professionals. Further consideration should be given to (i) incorporating reasons for non-vaccination into new interventions for promoting vaccination uptake; and (ii) how existing services can be optimised. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003192. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.