Expert opinion on a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies: qualitative interviews.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored experts' views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts' perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools. METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements. CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

A consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model. METHODS: The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question. RESULTS: The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

Rapid intrapartum test for maternal group B streptococcal colonisation and its effect on antibiotic use in labouring women with risk factors for early-onset neonatal infection (GBS2): cluster randomised trial with nested test accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Mother-to-baby transmission of group B Streptococcus (GBS) is the main cause of early-onset infection. We evaluated whether, in women with clinical risk factors for early neonatal infection, the use of point-of-care rapid intrapartum test to detect maternal GBS colonisation reduces maternal antibiotic exposure compared with usual care, where antibiotics are administered due to those risk factors. We assessed the accuracy of the rapid test in diagnosing maternal GBS colonisation, against the reference standard of selective enrichment culture. METHODS: We undertook a parallel-group cluster randomised trial, with nested test accuracy study and microbiological sub-study. UK maternity units were randomised to a strategy of rapid test (GeneXpert GBS system, Cepheid) or usual care. Within units assigned to rapid testing, vaginal-rectal swabs were taken from women with risk factors for vertical GBS transmission in established term labour. The trial primary outcome was the proportion of women receiving intrapartum antibiotics to prevent neonatal early-onset GBS infection. The accuracy of the rapid test was compared against the standard of selective enrichment culture in diagnosing maternal GBS colonisation. Antibiotic resistance profiles were determined in paired maternal and infant samples. RESULTS: Twenty-two maternity units were randomised and 20 were recruited. A total of 722 mothers (749 babies) participated in rapid test units; 906 mothers (951 babies) were in usual care units. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.64) between the rapid test (41%, 297/716) and usual care (36%, 328/906) units. No serious adverse events were reported. The sensitivity and specificity measures of the rapid test were 86% (95% CI 81 to 91%) and 89% (95% CI 85 to 92%), respectively. Babies born to mothers who carried antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli were more likely to be colonised with antibiotic-resistant strains than those born to mothers with antibiotic-susceptible E. coli. CONCLUSION: The use of intrapartum rapid test to diagnose maternal GBS colonisation did not reduce the rates of antibiotics administered for preventing neonatal early-onset GBS infection than usual care, although with considerable uncertainty. The accuracy of the rapid test is within acceptable limits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74746075 . Prospectively registered on 16 April 2015.

Are intersectoral costs considered in economic evaluations of interventions relating to sexually transmitted infections (STIs)? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) not only have an impact on the health sector but also the private resources of those affected, their families and other sectors of society (i.e. labour, education). This study aimed to i) review and identify economic evaluations of interventions relating to STIs, which aimed to include a societal perspective; ii) analyse the intersectoral costs (i.e. costs broader than healthcare) included; iii) categorise these costs by sector; and iv) assess the impact of intersectoral costs on the overall study results. METHODS: Seven databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit and NHS EED. Key search terms included terms for economic evaluation, STIs and specific infections. This review considered trial- and model-based economic evaluations conducted in an OECD member country. Studies were included that assessed intersectoral costs. Intersectoral costs were extracted and categorised by sector using Drummond's cost classification scheme (i.e. patient/family, productivity, costs in other sectors). A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies qualified for data extraction and narrative synthesis. Twenty-eight studies applied a societal perspective of which 8 additionally adopted a healthcare or payer perspective, or both. One study used a modified payer perspective. The following sectors were identified: patient/family, informal care, paid labour (productivity), non-paid opportunity costs, education, and consumption. Patient/family costs were captured in 11 studies and included patient time, travel expenses, out-of-pocket costs and premature burial costs. Informal caregiver support (non-family) and unpaid help by family/friends was captured in three studies. Paid labour losses were assessed in all but three studies. Three studies also captured the costs and inability to perform non-paid work. Educational costs and future non-health consumption costs were each captured in one study. The inclusion of intersectoral costs resulted in more favourable cost estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that economic evaluations of interventions relating to STIs that adopt a societal perspective tend to be limited in scope. There is an urgent need for economic evaluations to be more comprehensive in order to allow policy/decision-makers to make better-informed decisions.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Intersectoral costs of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV: a systematic review of cost-of-illness (COI) studies.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV can generate costs both within and outside the health sector (i.e. intersectoral costs). This systematic review aims (i) to explore the intersectoral costs associated with STIs and HIV considered in cost-of-illness (COI) studies, (ii) to categorise and analyse these costs according to cost sectors, and (iii) to illustrate the impact of intersectoral costs on the total cost burden. METHODS: Medline (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit and NHS EED were searched between 2009 and 2019. Key search terms included terms for cost-of-illness, cost analysis and all terms for STIs including specific infections. Studies were included that assessed intersectoral costs. A standardised data extraction form was adopted. A cost component table was established based on pre-defined sector-specific classification schemes. Cost results for intersectoral costs were recorded. The quality of studies was assessed using a modified version of the CHEC-list. RESULTS: 75 COI studies were considered for title/abstract screening. Only six studies were available in full-text and eligible for data extraction and narrative synthesis. Intersectoral costs were captured in the following sectors: Patient & family, Informal care and Productivity (Paid Labour). Patient & family costs were addressed in four studies, including patient out-of-pocket payments/co-payments and travel costs. Informal care costs including unpaid (home) care support by family/friends and other caregiver costs were considered in three studies. All six studies estimated productivity costs for paid labour including costs in terms of absenteeism, disability, cease-to-work, presenteeism and premature death. Intersectoral costs largely contributed to the total economic cost burden of STIs and HIV. The quality assessment revealed methodological differences. CONCLUSIONS: It is evident that intersectoral costs associated with STIs and HIV are substantial. If relevant intersectoral costs are not included in cost analyses the total cost burden of STIs and HIV to society is severely underestimated. Therefore, intersectoral costs need to be addressed in order to ensure the total economic burden of STIs and HIV on society is assessed, and communicated to policy/decision-makers.

The broader societal impacts of COVID-19 and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses.

AbstractThe rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has affected societies worldwide, leading to excess mortality, long-lasting health consequences, strained healthcare systems, and additional strains and spillover effects on other sectors outside health (i.e., intersectoral costs and benefits). In this perspective piece, we demonstrate the broader societal impacts of COVID-19 on other sectors outside the health sector and the growing importance of capturing these in health economic analyses. These broader impacts include, for instance, the effects on the labor market and productivity, education, criminal justice, housing, consumption, and environment. The current pandemic highlights the importance of adopting a societal perspective to consider these broader impacts of public health issues and interventions and only omit these where it can be clearly justified as appropriate to do so. Furthermore, we explain how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing deep-rooted structural inequalities that contribute to the wider societal impacts of the pandemic.

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS: G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. FINDINGS: Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group). INTERPRETATION: Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence.

Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness of internet-based training for primary care clinicians on antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Europe.

Objectives: Overprescribing of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) is seen as a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Training in communication skills and C-reactive protein (CRP) testing both appear effective in reducing such prescribing. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) of: (i) training GPs in the use of CRP testing; (ii) training GPs in communication skills; and (iii) training GPs in both CRP testing and communication skills. Methods: Economic analyses [cost-utility analysis (CUA) accounting for the cost of antibiotic resistance and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)] were both conducted from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 28 days alongside a multinational, cluster, randomized, factorial controlled trial in patients with respiratory tract infections in five European countries. The primary outcome measures were QALYs and percentage reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Hierarchical modelling was used to estimate an incremental cost per QALY gained and an incremental cost per percentage reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Results: Overall, the results of both the CUA and CEA showed that training in communication skills is the most cost-effective option. However, excluding the cost of antibiotic resistance in the CUA resulted in usual care being the most cost-effective option. Country-specific results from the CUA showed that training in communication skills was cost-effective in Belgium, UK and Netherlands whilst training in CRP was cost-effective in Poland. Conclusions: Internet-based training in communication skills is a cost-effective intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care if the cost of antibiotic resistance is accounted for.

Identifying and assessing the benefits of interventions for postnatal depression: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of interventions for postnatal depression (PND) are essential to ensure optimal healthcare decision-making. Due to the wide-ranging effects of PND on the mother, baby and whole family, there is a need to include outcomes for all those affected and to include health and non-health outcomes for accurate estimates of cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to identify interventions to prevent or treat PND for which an economic evaluation had been conducted and to evaluate the health and non-health outcomes included. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted applying a comprehensive search strategy across eight electronic databases and other sources. Full or partial economic evaluations of interventions involving preventive strategies (including screening), and any treatments for women with or at-risk of PND, conducted in OECD countries were included. We excluded epidemiological studies and those focussing on costs only. The included studies underwent a quality appraisal to inform the analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria, the majority focused on psychological /psychosocial interventions. The interventions ranged from additional support from health professionals, peer support, to combined screening and treatment strategies. Maternal health outcomes were measured in all studies; however child health outcomes were included in only four of them. Across studies, the maternal health outcomes included were quality-adjusted-life-years gained, improvement in depressive symptoms, PND cases detected or recovered, whereas the child health outcomes included were cognitive functioning, depression, sleep and temperament. Non-health outcomes such as couples' relationships and parent-infant interaction were rarely included. Other methodological issues such as limitations in the time horizon and perspective(s) adopted were identified, that were likely to result in imprecise estimates of benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The exclusion of relevant health and non-health outcomes may mean that only a partial assessment of cost-effectiveness is undertaken, leading to sub-optimal resource allocation decisions. Future research should seek ways to expand the evaluative space of economic evaluations and explore approaches to integrate health and non-health outcomes for all individuals affected by this condition. There is a need to ensure that the time horizon adopted in studies is appropriate to allow true estimation of the long-term benefits and costs of PND interventions.

Cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during cesarean section: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (SALVO).

BACKGROUND: Excessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference -1.03, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. CONCLUSIONS: The overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656.

A Systematic Review of the Techniques Used to Value Temporary Health States.

BACKGROUND: A broad literature on health state utility values exists, but compared with chronic health states (HSs), issues surrounding the valuation of temporary health states (THSs) have been poorly explored. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methods used by previous studies to value HSs that are considered temporary so as to determine the strengths and limitations associated with various approaches and to inform future study designs. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to explore the methods used, assess how the valuation was conducted for diseases that might lead to HSs deemed as temporary, and identify the challenges encountered in the valuation of THSs. RESULTS: Of the 36 relevant studies, 22 were explicit that the HS being valued was temporary. Most of the studies used more than one technique (often incorporating both conventional and adapted approaches). In using adapted techniques, the primary challenge was identifying an appropriate intermediate "anchor" HS and the possibility of negative utilities. CONCLUSIONS: There is no agreement on the most methodologically robust approach to THS valuation. Valuation is complex and important issues relating to the validity, practicality, and reliability of the techniques used were not adequately covered by most of the studies identified.

Measuring Health and Quality of Life for Women Undergoing Testing and Screening for Chlamydia: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Most economic evaluations of interventions to prevent or control curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as chlamydia, have focused on the longer-term health impacts avoided. However, there is a range of qualitative evidence suggesting that those who think that they might have an STI and/or undergo testing can experience impacts on their quality of life (QoL) at the testing and diagnosis stage. A systematic review was undertaken to identify and evaluate studies that have measured QoL and sexual health for women undergoing testing and screening for chlamydia. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with searches of 5 electronic databases up to the end of August 2013. Data on study characteristics, methods, and results were extracted using a standard template, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Eight studies measuring QoL and sexual health were included. The included studies measured a variety of aspects of QoL and sexual health, with a focus on psychosocial well-being. A range of validated tools were used to measure health and QoL, and "bespoke" questions were also developed. Few significant differences were found with comparator groups using generic instruments, but some impacts were found using bespoke questions. CONCLUSIONS: Although researchers have begun to examine the relationships between QoL and sexual health, there are limitations associated with the evidence available. There is, thus, a need for further research exploring sexual health and QoL for patients undergoing testing and screening for curable STIs, with a focus on analyzing the most appropriate methodological approaches in this context.

The validity and responsiveness of the ICECAP-A capability-well-being measure in women with irritative lower urinary tract symptoms.

PURPOSE: A desire to incorporate broader aspects of well-being in health economic evaluations has led to the development of the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A). The ICECAP-A draws upon Amartya Sen's capability approach and conceptualises well-being as the capability to achieve Stability, Attachment, Autonomy, Achievement, and Enjoyment. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric performance of the ICECAP-A in a context where patient outcomes can extend beyond health-related quality of life. METHODS: Longitudinal data were collected for 478 women with symptoms of urinary frequency and urgency, with or without incontinence. Women were recruited across 22 hospitals in the UK and had a mean age of 55 (SD 14). The psychometric performance of the measure was evaluated in relation to the EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Overactive Bladder (ICIQ-OAB) and involved an assessment of acceptability, construct validity, and responsiveness using parametric and nonparametric methods. RESULTS: ICECAP-A showed good convergence with the ICIQ-OAB with 20 out of 22 expected patterns of relationship confirmed. Findings suggested that the ICECAP-A has better discriminative properties than EQ-5D-3L and as good as those of the ICIQ-OAB, confirming expected associations with clinical and demographic factors. The ICECAP-A was more responsive than EQ-5D-3L and ICIQ-OAB to deteriorations of clinical symptoms. Improvements in symptoms were not valued as highly as deteriorations by either ICECAP-A or EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: The ICECAP-A is a valid and responsive measure capturing broad emotional and practical impacts of urinary symptoms on women's well-being and could be considered for use in economic evaluations in this context.

Exploring the costs and outcomes of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football club settings: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the SPORTSMART pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the costs and outcomes of two sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeted at men in football club settings in England, including screening promoted by team captains. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside a pilot cluster randomised control trial involving three trial arms: (1) captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; (2) sexual health advisor-led and poster STI screening promotion and (3) poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). For all study arms, resource use and cost data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in uptake rates between clubs, but results were broadly comparable across study arms with 50% of men accepting the screening offer in the captain-led arm, 67% in the sexual health advisor-led arm and 61% in the poster-only control arm. The overall costs associated with the intervention arms were similar. The average cost per player tested was comparable, with the average cost per player tested for the captain-led promotion estimated to be £88.99 compared with £88.33 for the sexual health advisor-led promotion and £81.87 for the poster-only (control) arm. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and outcomes were similar across intervention arms. The target sample size was not achieved, and we found a greater than anticipated variability between clubs in the acceptability of screening, which limited our ability to estimate acceptability for intervention arms. Further evidence is needed about the public health benefits associated with screening interventions in non-clinical settings so that their cost-effectiveness can be fully evaluated.

The SPORTSMART study: a pilot randomised controlled trial of sexually transmitted infection screening interventions targeting men in football club settings.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of chlamydia screening by men in England has been substantially lower than by women. Non-traditional settings such as sports clubs offer opportunities to widen access. Involving people who are not medically trained to promote screening could optimise acceptability. METHODS: We developed two interventions to explore the acceptability and feasibility of urine-based sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football clubs. We tested these interventions in a pilot cluster randomised control trial. Six clubs were randomly allocated, two to each of three trial arms: team captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; sexual health adviser-led and poster STI screening promotion; and poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). Primary outcome was test uptake. RESULTS: Across the three arms, 153 men participated in the trial and 90 accepted the offer of screening (59%, 95% CI 35% to 79%). Acceptance rates were broadly comparable across the arms: captain-led: 28/56 (50%); health professional-led: 31/46 (67%); and control: 31/51 (61%). However, rates varied appreciably by club, precluding formal comparison of arms. No infections were identified. Process evaluation confirmed that interventions were delivered in a standardised way but the control arm was unintentionally 'enhanced' by some team captains actively publicising screening events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other UK-based community screening models, uptake was high but gaining access to clubs was not always easy. Use of sexual health advisers and team captains to promote screening did not appear to confer additional benefit over a poster-promoted approach. Although the interventions show potential, the broader implications of this strategy for UK male STI screening policy require further investigation.

Developing and testing accelerated partner therapy for partner notification for people with genital Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosed in primary care: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated partner therapy (APT) is a promising partner notification (PN) intervention in specialist sexual health clinic attenders. To address its applicability in primary care, we undertook a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of two APT models in community settings. METHODS: Three-arm pilot RCT of two adjunct APT interventions: APTHotline (telephone assessment of partner(s) plus standard PN) and APTPharmacy (community pharmacist assessment of partner(s) plus routine PN), versus standard PN alone (patient referral). Index patients were women diagnosed with genital chlamydia in 12 general practices and three community contraception and sexual health (CASH) services in London and south coast of England, randomised between 1 September 2011 and 31 July 2013. RESULTS: 199 women described 339 male partners, of whom 313 were reported by the index as contactable. The proportions of contactable partners considered treated within 6 weeks of index diagnosis were APTHotline 39/111 (35%), APTPharmacy 46/100 (46%), standard patient referral 46/102 (45%). Among treated partners, 8/39 (21%) in APTHotline arm were treated via hotline and 14/46 (30%) in APTPharmacy arm were treated via pharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: The two novel primary care APT models were acceptable, feasible, compliant with regulations and capable of achieving acceptable outcomes within a pilot RCT but intervention uptake was low. Although addition of these interventions to standard PN did not result in a difference between arms, overall PN uptake was higher than previously reported in similar settings, probably as a result of introducing a formal evaluation. Recruitment to an individually randomised trial proved challenging and full evaluation will likely require service-level randomisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio id number 10123.

Exploring the intangible economic costs of stillbirth.

BACKGROUND: Compared to other pregnancy-related events, the full cost of stillbirth remains poorly described. In the UK one in every 200 births ends in stillbirth. As a follow-up to a recent study which explored the direct costs of stillbirth, this study aimed to explore the intangible costs of stillbirth in terms of their duration and economic implication. METHODS: Systematic searches identified relevant papers on the psychological consequences of stillbirth. A narrative review of the quantitative studies was undertaken. This was followed by a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography to identify over-arching themes common to the papers. Finally, the themes were used to generate questions proposed for use in a questionnaire to capture the intangible costs of stillbirth. RESULTS: The narrative review revealed a higher level of anxiety and depression in couples with stillbirth compared to those without stillbirth. The qualitative synthesis identified a range of psychological effects common to families that have experienced stillbirth. Both methods revealed the persistent nature of these effects and the subsequent economic burden. CONCLUSIONS: The psychological effects of stillbirth adversely impacts on the daily functioning, relationships and employment of those affected with far-reaching economic implications. Knowledge of the intangible costs of stillbirth is therefore important to accurately estimate the size of the impact on families and health services and to inform policy and decision making.

Valuing the health states associated with Chlamydia trachomatis infections and their sequelae: a systematic review of economic evaluations and primary studies.

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control sexually transmitted infections such as Chlamydia trachomatis are increasingly required to present their outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years using preference-based measurements of relevant health states. The objectives of this study were to critically evaluate how published cost-effectiveness studies have conceptualized and valued health states associated with chlamydia and to examine the primary evidence available to inform health state utility values (HSUVs). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, with searches of six electronic databases up to December 2012. Data on study characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted by using a standard template. RESULTS: Nineteen economic evaluations of relevant interventions were included. Individual studies considered different health states and assigned different values and durations. Eleven studies cited the same source for HSUVs. Only five primary studies valued relevant health states. The methods and viewpoints adopted varied, and different values for health states were generated. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in the information available about HSUVs associated with chlamydia and its complications have implications for the robustness of economic evaluations in this area. None of the primary studies could be used without reservation to inform cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom. Future debate should consider appropriate methods for valuing health states for infectious diseases, because recommended approaches may not be suitable. Unless we adequately tackle the challenges associated with measuring and valuing health-related quality of life for patients with chlamydia and other infectious diseases, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area will remain problematic.