Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0).

INTRODUCTION: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17395671.

LAparoscopic Versus Abdominal hysterectomy (LAVA): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy, particularly the relative rate of complications of the two procedures. While uptake of laparoscopic hysterectomy has been slow, the situation is changing with greater familiarity, better training, better equipment and increased proficiency in the technique. Thus, a large, robust, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare contemporary laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal hysterectomy to determine the safest and most cost-effective technique. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel, open, non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled, expertise-based surgery trial with integrated health economic evaluation and an internal pilot with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. A within trial-based economic evaluation will explore the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. We will aim to recruit 3250 women requiring a hysterectomy for a benign gynaecological condition and who were suitable for either laparoscopic or open techniques. The primary outcome is major complications up to six completed weeks postsurgery and the key secondary outcome is time from surgery to resumption of usual activities using the personalised Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function questionnaire. The principal outcome for the economic evaluation is to be cost per QALY at 12 months' postsurgery. A secondary analysis is to be undertaken to generate costs per major surgical complication avoided and costs per return to normal activities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee, 18 February 2021 (Ethics ref: 21/WM/0019). REC approval for the protocol version 2.0 dated 2 February 2021 was issued on 18 February 2021.We will present the findings in national and international conferences. We will also aim to publish the findings in high impact peer-reviewed journals. We will disseminate the completed paper to the Department of Health, the Scientific Advisory Committees of the RCOG, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) and the BSGE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14566195.

The Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) Reversal Trial: effect on final height of discontinuation versus continuation of growth hormone treatment in pubertal children with isolated GHD-a non-inferiority Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) is the commonest endocrine cause of short stature and may occur in isolation (I-GHD) or combined with other pituitary hormone deficiencies. Around 500 children are diagnosed with GHD every year in the UK, of whom 75% have I-GHD. Growth hormone (GH) therapy improves growth in children with GHD, with the goal of achieving a normal final height (FH). GH therapy is given as daily injections until adult FH is reached. However, in many children with I-GHD their condition reverses, with a normal peak GH detected in 64-82% when re-tested at FH. Therefore, at some point between diagnosis and FH, I-GHD must have reversed, possibly due to increase in sex hormones during puberty. Despite increasing evidence for frequent I-GHD reversal, daily GH injections are traditionally continued until FH is achieved. METHODS/DESIGN: Evidence suggests that I-GHD children who re-test normal in early puberty reach a FH comparable to that of children without GHD. The GHD Reversal study will include 138 children from routine endocrine clinics in twelve UK and five Austrian centres with I-GHD (original peak GH < 6.7 mcg/L) whose deficiency has reversed on early re-testing. Children will be randomised to either continue or discontinue GH therapy. This phase III, international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial (including an internal pilot study) will assess whether children with early I-GHD reversal who stop GH therapy achieve non-inferior near FH SDS (primary outcome; inferiority margin 0.55 SD), target height (TH) minus near FH, HRQoL, bone health index and lipid profiles (secondary outcomes) than those continuing GH. In addition, the study will assess cost-effectiveness of GH discontinuation in the early retesting scenario. DISCUSSION: If this study shows that a significant proportion of children with presumed I-GHD reversal generate enough GH naturally in puberty to achieve a near FH within the target range, then this new care pathway would rapidly improve national/international practice. An assumed 50% reversal rate would provide potential UK health service cost savings of £1.8-4.6 million (€2.05-5.24 million)/year in drug costs alone. This new care pathway would also prevent children from having unnecessary daily GH injections and consequent exposure to potential adverse effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-001006-39.

Economic Evaluation of Using Daily Prednisolone versus Placebo at the Time of an Upper Respiratory Tract Infection for the Management of Children with Steroid-Sensitive Nephrotic Syndrome: A Model-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Childhood steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome is a frequently relapsing disease with significant short- and long-term complications, leading to high healthcare costs and reduced quality of life for patients. The majority of relapses are triggered by upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and evidence shows that daily low-dose prednisolone at the time of infection may reduce the risk of relapse. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of a 6-day course of low-dose prednisolone at the start of a URTI when compared with placebo. METHODS: A state-transition Markov model was developed to conduct a cost-utility analysis with the outcome measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Resource use and outcome data were derived from the PREDNOS2 trial. The analysis was performed from a UK National Health Service perspective and the results were extrapolated to adulthood. Model parameter and structural uncertainty were assessed using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base-case results showed that administering low-dose prednisolone at the time of a URTI generated more QALYs and a lower mean cost at 1 year compared with placebo. In the long-term, low-dose prednisolone was associated with a cost saving (£176) and increased effectiveness (0.01 QALYs) compared with placebo and thus remained the dominant treatment option. These findings were robust to all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: A 6-day course of low-dose prednisolone at the time of a URTI in children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome has the potential to reduce healthcare costs and improve quality of life compared with placebo.

Daily low-dose prednisolone to prevent relapse of steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome in children with an upper respiratory tract infection: PREDNOS2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Most children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome have relapses that are triggered by upper respiratory tract infections. Four small trials, mostly in children already taking maintenance corticosteroid in countries of different upper respiratory tract infection epidemiology, showed that giving daily low-dose prednisone/prednisolone for 5-7 days during an upper respiratory tract infection reduces the risk of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To determine if these findings were replicated in a large UK population of children with relapsing steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome on different background medication or none. DESIGN: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, including a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: A total of 122 UK paediatric departments, of which 91 recruited patients. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 365 children with relapsing steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (mean age 7.6 ± 3.5 years) were randomised (1 : 1) according to a minimisation algorithm based on background treatment. Eighty children completed 12 months of follow-up without an upper respiratory tract infection. Thirty-two children were withdrawn from the trial (14 prior to an upper respiratory tract infection), leaving a modified intention-to-treat analysis population of 271 children (134 and 137 children in the prednisolone and placebo arms, respectively). INTERVENTIONS: At the start of an upper respiratory tract infection, children received 6 days of prednisolone (15 mg/m2) or an equivalent dose of placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of first upper respiratory tract infection-related relapse following any upper respiratory tract infection over 12 months. The secondary outcomes were the overall rate of relapse, changes in background treatment, cumulative dose of prednisolone, rates of serious adverse events, incidence of corticosteroid adverse effects, change in Achenbach Child Behaviour Checklist score and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat principle. The cost-effectiveness analysis used trial data and a decision-analytic model to estimate quality-adjusted life-years and costs at 1 year, which were then extrapolated over 16 years. RESULTS: There were 384 upper respiratory tract infections and 82 upper respiratory tract infection-related relapses in the prednisolone arm, and 407 upper respiratory tract infections and 82 upper respiratory tract infection-related relapses in the placebo arm. The number of patients experiencing an upper respiratory tract infection-related relapse was 56 (42.7%) and 58 (44.3%) in the prednisolone and placebo arms, respectively (adjusted risk difference -0.024, 95% confidence interval -0.14 to 0.09; p = 0.70). There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed when data were analysed according to background treatment. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between treatment arms. Giving daily prednisolone at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection was associated with increased quality-adjusted life-years (0.9427 vs. 0.9424) and decreased average costs (£252 vs. £254), when compared with standard care. The cost saving was driven by background therapy and hospitalisations after relapse. The finding was robust to sensitivity analysis. LIMITATIONS: A larger number of children than expected did not have an upper respiratory tract infection and the sample size attrition rate was adjusted accordingly during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical analysis indicated that giving 6 days of daily low-dose prednisolone at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection does not reduce the risk of relapse of steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome in UK children. However, there was an economic benefit from costs associated with background therapy and relapse, and the health-related quality-of-life impact of having a relapse. FUTURE WORK: Further work is needed to investigate the clinical and health economic impact of relapses, interethnic differences in treatment response, the effect of different corticosteroid regimens in treating relapses, and the pathogenesis of individual viral infections and their effect on steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10900733 and EudraCT 2012-003476-39. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome is a kidney condition in which protein leaks into the urine, causing generalised swelling. In most children, the condition recurs or relapses. Relapses often occur following an upper respiratory tract infection (i.e. a cough, cold or sore throat). Research in tropical countries suggests that if children have a small dose of daily steroids for a week at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection then they are less likely to relapse. The selection of children for these studies and the different patterns of infection mean that we are not certain if this treatment would work in the UK. A total of 365 children with relapsing nephrotic syndrome took part. Half of the children took a steroid and the other half took dummy tablets (placebo) for 6 days at the start of an upper respiratory tract infection. We followed up the children for 12 months and collected information on relapses and other treatments and information from questionnaires about behaviour and quality of life. We also investigated whether or not there were cost savings with this treatment. There were 271 children who had an upper respiratory tract infection in the 12 months of the study and so only these children were included in the analyses. Giving 6 days of a low-dose steroid at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection did not reduce the risk of a relapse. There was also no effect on the overall number of relapses, the number of children needing to start extra preventative treatments or side effects of steroids. Although there was no clinical effect, the economic evaluation found that giving prednisolone led to lower treatment costs overall and higher quality of life and might, therefore, offer better value for money, but this has to be interpreted against the clinical evidence of no significant effect. Our conclusion is that there is no clinical benefit to giving children low-dose prednisolone at the time of an upper respiratory tract infection.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial compared Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT® LOUD) with standard NHS speech and language therapy (SLT) and a control arm in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with self-reported problems with voice or speech. This analysis compares costs and quality of life outcomes between the trial arms, and considers the validity of the alternative outcome measures for economic evaluations. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside the PD COMM pilot trial involving three arms: LSVT® LOUD treatment (n = 30); standard NHS SLT (n = 30); and a control arm (n = 29) excluded from receiving therapy for at least 6 months after randomisation unless deemed medically necessary. For all trial arms, resource use and NHS, social care and patient costs and quality of life were collected prospectively at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Total economic costs and outcomes (EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O) were considered over the 12-month follow-up period from an NHS payer perspective. Quality of life measures for economic evaluation of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease were compared. RESULTS: Whilst there was no difference between arms in voice or quality of life outcomes at 12 months, there were indications of differences at 3 months in favour of SLT, which need to be confirmed in the main trial. The estimated mean cost of NHS care was £3288 per patient per year for the LSVT® LOUD arm, £2033 for NHS SLT, and £1788 for the control arm. EQ-5D-3L was more strongly correlated to voice impairment than ICECAP-O, and was sensitive to differences in voice impairment between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot did not identify an effect of SLT on disease-specific or economic outcomes for PwPD at 12 months; however, there appeared to be improvements at 3 months. In addition to the sample size not powered to detect difference in cost-consequence analysis, many patients in the control arm started SLT during the 12-month period used for economic analysis, in line with the study protocol. The LSVT® LOUD intervention was more intense and therefore more costly. Early indications suggest that the preferred economic outcome measure for the full trial is EQ-5D-3L; however, the ICECAP-O should still be included to capture a broader measure of wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. Registered 22 March 2012.

Long term tapering versus standard prednisolone treatment for first episode of childhood nephrotic syndrome: phase III randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether extending initial prednisolone treatment from eight to 16 weeks in children with idiopathic steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome improves the pattern of disease relapse. DESIGN: Double blind, parallel group, phase III randomised placebo controlled trial, including a cost effectiveness analysis. SETTING: 125 UK National Health Service district general hospitals and tertiary paediatric nephrology centres. PARTICIPANTS: 237 children aged 1-14 years with a first episode of steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Children were randomised to receive an extended 16 week course of prednisolone (total dose 3150 mg/m2) or a standard eight week course of prednisolone (total dose 2240 mg/m2). The drug was supplied as 5 mg tablets alongside matching placebo so that participants in both groups received the same number of tablets at any time point in the study. A minimisation algorithm ensured balanced treatment allocation by ethnicity (South Asian, white, or other) and age (5 years or less, 6 years or more). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to first relapse over a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcome measures were relapse rate, incidence of frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome and steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome, use of alternative immunosuppressive treatment, rates of adverse events, behavioural change using the Achenbach child behaviour checklist, quality adjusted life years, and cost effectiveness from a healthcare perspective. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.17, log rank P=0.28) or in the incidence of frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (extended course 60/114 (53%) v standard course 55/109 (50%), P=0.75), steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome (48/114 (42%) v 48/109 (44%), P=0.77), or requirement for alternative immunosuppressive treatment (62/114 (54%) v 61/109 (56%), P=0.81). Total prednisolone dose after completion of the trial drug was 6674 mg for the extended course versus 5475 mg for the standard course (P=0.07). There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse event rates (extended course 19/114 (17%) v standard course 27/109 (25%), P=0.13) or adverse event rates, with the exception of behaviour, which was poorer in the standard course group. Scores on the Achenbach child behaviour checklist did not, however, differ. Extended course treatment was associated with a mean increase in generic quality of life (0.0162 additional quality adjusted life years, 95% confidence interval -0.005 to 0.037) and cost savings (difference -£1673 ($2160; €1930), 95% confidence interval -£3455 to £109). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes did not improve when the initial course of prednisolone treatment was extended from eight to 16 weeks in UK children with steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome. However, evidence was found of a short term health economic benefit through reduced resource use and increased quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16645249; EudraCT 2010-022489-29.

Sixteen-week versus standard eight-week prednisolone therapy for childhood nephrotic syndrome: the PREDNOS RCT.

BACKGROUND: The optimal corticosteroid regimen for treating the presenting episode of steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) remains uncertain. Most UK centres use an 8-week regimen, despite previous systematic reviews indicating that longer regimens reduce the risk of relapse and frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (FRNS). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine whether or not an extended 16-week course of prednisolone increases the time to first relapse. The secondary objectives were to compare the relapse rate, FRNS and steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome (SDNS) rates, requirement for alternative immunosuppressive agents and corticosteroid-related adverse events (AEs), including adverse behaviour and costs. DESIGN: Randomised double-blind parallel-group placebo-controlled trial, including a cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: One hundred and twenty-five UK paediatric departments. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven children presenting with a first episode of SSNS. Participants aged between 1 and 15 years were randomised (1 : 1) according to a minimisation algorithm to ensure balance of ethnicity (South Asian, white or other) and age (≤ 5 or ≥ 6 years). INTERVENTIONS: The control group (n = 118) received standard course (SC) prednisolone therapy: 60 mg/m2/day of prednisolone in weeks 1-4, 40 mg/m2 of prednisolone on alternate days in weeks 5-8 and matching placebo on alternate days in weeks 9-18 (total 2240 mg/m2). The intervention group (n = 119) received extended course (EC) prednisolone therapy: 60 mg/m2/day of prednisolone in weeks 1-4; started at 60 mg/m2 of prednisolone on alternate days in weeks 5-16, tapering by 10 mg/m2 every 2 weeks (total 3150 mg/m2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to first relapse [Albustix® (Siemens Healthcare Limited, Frimley, UK)-positive proteinuria +++ or greater for 3 consecutive days or the presence of generalised oedema plus +++ proteinuria]. The secondary outcome measures were relapse rate, incidence of FRNS and SDNS, other immunosuppressive therapy use, rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and AEs and the incidence of behavioural change [using Achenbach Child Behaviour Checklist (ACBC)]. A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The analysis was by intention to treat. Participants were followed for a minimum of 24 months. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in time to first relapse between the SC and EC groups (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.17; log-rank p = 0.3). There were also no differences in the incidence of FRNS (SC 50% vs. EC 53%; p = 0.7), SDNS (44% vs. 42%; p = 0.8) or requirement for other immunosuppressive therapy (56% vs. 54%; p = 0.8). The total prednisolone dose received following completion of study medication was 5475 mg vs. 6674 mg (p = 0.07). SAE rates were not significantly different (25% vs. 17%; p = 0.1) and neither were AEs, except poor behaviour (yes/no), which was less frequent with EC treatment. There were no differences in ACBC scores. EC therapy was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit [0.0162 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and cost savings (£4369 vs. £2696). LIMITATIONS: Study drug formulation may have prevented some younger children who were unable to swallow whole or crushed tablets from participating. CONCLUSIONS: This trial has not shown any clinical benefit for EC prednisolone therapy in UK children. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that EC therapy may be cheaper, with the possibility of a small QALY benefit. FUTURE WORK: Studies investigating EC versus SC therapy in younger children and further cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16645249 and EudraCT 2010-022489-29. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) is one of the most common childhood kidney diseases. The kidney filters leak protein into the urine, resulting in low levels of protein in the blood and generalised swelling. If untreated, this can lead to serious complications, including infection and blood clots. The disease responds well to prednisolone, a steroid drug; however, it is very common for disease to recur (called a relapse). Doctors are uncertain how long prednisolone should be given to treat children when they first present with nephrotic syndrome. In the UK, a 2-month course has traditionally been used. However, a number of research studies have suggested that giving prednisolone for ≥ 3 months may reduce the number of children who relapse and also the number who develop lots of relapses (called frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome; FRNS). We recruited 237 children presenting with SSNS. Half were given an 8-week standard course of prednisolone and the other half a 16-week extended course (EC). We used placebo (dummy tablets) so that the participants and doctors did not know which treatment group they were in. Participants were followed for a minimum of 24 months and monitored for the development of relapses and prednisolone side effects, including behavioural problems. A cost analysis was performed. Giving EC prednisolone did not delay the development of disease relapse. There was also no difference in the number of children who developed FRNS or steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome or who needed to be given other treatments. The rate of prednisolone side effects was the similar in the two treatment groups. EC treatment was, however, cheaper by £1673. Therefore, we conclude that there is no clinical benefit associated with the administration of EC prednisolone therapy in UK children presenting for the first time with SSNS. However, EC therapy was cheaper than the standard treatment.

Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index-9 Dimension (CHU-9D) Score for Economic Evaluation in Children.

BACKGROUND: The Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) questionnaire is a widely used, generic instrument designed for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL); however, it is not preference-based and therefore not suitable for cost-utility analysis. The Child Health Utility Index-9 Dimension (CHU-9D), however, is a preference-based instrument that has been primarily developed to support cost-utility analysis. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a method for estimating CHU-9D index scores from responses to the PedsQL™ using data from a randomised controlled trial of prednisolone therapy for treatment of childhood corticosteroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome. METHODS: HRQoL data were collected from children at randomisation, week 16, and months 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48. Observations on children aged 5 years and older were pooled across all data collection timepoints and were then randomised into an estimation (n = 279) and validation (n = 284) sample. A number of models were developed using the estimation data before internal validation. The best model was chosen using multi-stage selection criteria. RESULTS: Most of the models developed accurately predicted the CHU-9D mean index score. The best performing model was a generalised linear model (mean absolute error = 0.0408; mean square error = 0.0035). The proportion of index scores deviating from the observed scores by <  0.03 was 53%. CONCLUSIONS: The mapping algorithm provides an empirical tool for estimating CHU-9D index scores and for conducting cost-utility analyses within clinical studies that have only collected PedsQL™ data. It is valid for children aged 5 years or older. Caution should be exercised when using this with children younger than 5 years, older adolescents (>  13 years) or patient groups with particularly poor quality of life. ISRCTN REGISTRY NO: 16645249.

Randomised controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus a community weight loss programme for the sustained treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension: the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Weight Trial (IIH:WT) protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments are lacking for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), a condition characterised by raised intracranial pressure (ICP) and papilloedema, and found primarily in obese women. Weight loss and lowering body mass index (BMI) have been shown to lower ICP and improve symptoms in IIH; however, weight loss is typically not maintained, meaning IIH symptoms return. The Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Weight Trial (IIH:WT) will assess whether bariatric surgery is an effective long-term treatment for patients with IIH with a BMI over 35 kg/m2. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends bariatric surgery in people with a BMI over 35 kg/m2 and a qualifying comorbidity; currently IIH does not qualify as a comorbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: IIH:WT is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial of 64 participants with active IIH and a BMI over 35 kg/m2. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to bariatric surgery or a dietary weight loss programme and followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome measure is ICP at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include ICP at 24 and 60 months, and IIH symptoms, visual function, papilloedema, headache, quality of life and cost-effectiveness at 12, 24 and 60 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IIH:WT is registered as ISRCTN40152829 and on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02124486 and is in the pre-results stage.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy and occupational therapy versus no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson's disease: a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PD REHAB).

BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson's disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Large pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services (n = 381) or no therapy (n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Data from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.5; p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (-0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.002; p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62; p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03; p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI -0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI -£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% -£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: NHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson's disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on healthcare utilization in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The Northeast Pulmonary Rehabilitation Consortium.

Although pulmonary rehabilitation results in improvement in multiple outcome areas, relatively few studies in the United States have evaluated its effect on healthcare utilization. This study compared aspects of healthcare utilization during the year before to the year after outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease referred to 11 hospital-based centers in Connecticut and New York. Utilization data from 128 of 132 patients who originally gave informed consent were evaluated; their mean age was 69 years and their forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 44% of predicted. Forty-five percent had 1 or more hospitalizations in the year before beginning pulmonary rehabilitation. In the year after pulmonary rehabilitation, there were 0.25 fewer total hospitalizations (P = .017) and 2.18 fewer hospital days (P = .015) per patient and 271 fewer hospital days for the group. Hospitalizations for respiratory reasons also decreased significantly. Most of the reduction in hospital utilization was due to a decrease in intensive care unit days. The number of physician visits decreased by 2.4 in the year after pulmonary rehabilitation (P < .0001); most of this reduction was due to decreased visits to primary care providers. The estimated costs/charges for the aspects of healthcare utilization that we studied decreased by a mean of 4,694 dollars and a median of 390 dollars (P = .0002). This study suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation leads to a reduction in healthcare utilization.