Effectiveness of a symptom-clinic intervention delivered by general practitioners with an extended role for people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms in England: the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple and persistent physical symptoms have impaired quality of life and poor experiences of health care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based symptom-clinic intervention in people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms, hypothesising that this symptoms clinic plus usual care would be superior to usual care only. METHODS: The Multiple Symptoms Study 3 was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in 108 general practices in the UK National Health Service in four regions of England between Dec 6, 2018, and June 30, 2023. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) to the symptom-clinic intervention plus usual care or to usual care only via a computer-generated, pseudo-random list stratified by trial centre. Allocation was done by the trial statistician and concealed with a centralised, web-based randomisation system; masking participants was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The symptom-clinic intervention was a sequence of up to four medical consultations that aimed to elicit a detailed clinical history, fully hear and validate the participant, offer rational explanations for symptoms, and assist the participant to develop ways of managing their symptoms; it was delivered by general practitioners with an extended role. The primary outcome was Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) score 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN57050216). FINDINGS: 354 participants were randomly assigned; 178 (50%) were assigned to receive the community-based symptoms clinic plus usual care and 176 (50%) were assigned to receive usual care only. At the primary-outcome point of 52 weeks, PHQ-15 scores were 14·1 (SD 3·7) in the group receiving usual care and 12·2 (4·5) in the group receiving the intervention. The adjusted between-group difference of -1·82 (95% CI -2·67 to -0·97) was statistically significantly in favour of the intervention group (p<0·0001). There were 39 adverse events in the group receiving usual care and 36 adverse events in the group receiving the intervention. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of participants who had non-serious adverse events (-0·03, 95% CI -0·11 to 0·05) or serious adverse events (0·02, -0·02 to 0·07). No serious adverse event was deemed to be related to the trial intervention. INTERPRETATION: Our symptom-clinic intervention, which focused on explaining persistent symptoms to participants in order to support self-management, led to sustained improvement in multiple and persistent physical symptoms. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Feasibility of comparing medical management and surgery (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) with medical management alone in people with symptomatic brain cavernoma - protocol for the Cavernomas: A Randomised Effectiveness (CARE) pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: The top research priority for cavernoma, identified by a James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnership was 'Does treatment (with neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) or no treatment improve outcome for people diagnosed with a cavernoma?' This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility of answering this question in a main phase RCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a pilot phase, parallel group, pragmatic RCT involving approximately 60 children or adults with mental capacity, resident in the UK or Ireland, with an unresected symptomatic brain cavernoma. Participants will be randomised by web-based randomisation 1:1 to treatment with medical management and with surgery (neurosurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery) versus medical management alone, stratified by prerandomisation preference for type of surgery. In addition to 13 feasibility outcomes, the primary clinical outcome is symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage or new persistent/progressive focal neurological deficit measured at 6 monthly intervals. An integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) evaluates screening logs, audio recordings of recruitment discussions, and interviews with recruiters and patients/parents/carers to identify and address barriers to participation. A Patient Advisory Group has codesigned the study and will oversee its progress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber-Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (21/YH/0046). We will submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals, describing the findings of the QRI and the Cavernomas: A Randomised Evaluation (CARE) pilot trial. We will present at national specialty meetings. We will disseminate a plain English summary of the findings of the CARE pilot trial to participants and public audiences with input from, and acknowledgement of, the Patient Advisory Group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN41647111.

Comparing inpatient management of chronic pelvic pain flares before and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract: Patients with chronic pelvic pain (CPP) may experience pain exacerbations requiring hospital admissions. Due to the effects of backlogged elective surgeries and outpatient gynaecology appointments resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, we hypothesised that there would be an increased number of women admitted with CPP flares. We conducted a retrospective review of all acute gynaecology admissions at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from July to December 2018 (pre-COVID) and 2021 (post-COVID lockdown). We collected information on the proportion of emergency admissions due to CPP, inpatient investigations and subsequent management. Average total indicative hospital inpatient costs for women with CPP were calculated using NHS National Cost Collection data guidance. There was no significant difference in the number of emergency admissions due to pelvic pain before (153/507) and after (160/461) the COVID-19 pandemic. As high as 33 and 31% had a background history of CPP, respectively. Across both timepoints, investigations in women with CPP had low diagnostic yield: <25% had abnormal imaging findings and 0% had positive vaginal swab cultures. Women with CPP received significantly more inpatient morphine, pain team reviews and were more likely to be discharged with strong opioids. Total yearly inpatient costs were £170,104 and £179,156 in 2018 and 2021, respectively. Overall, emergency admission rates for managing CPP flares was similar before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Inpatient resource use for women with CPP remains high, investigations have low diagnostic yield and frequent instigation of opiates on discharge may risk dependence. Improved community care of CPP is needed to reduce emergency gynaecology resource utilisation. Lay summary: Existing treatments for chronic pelvic pain (CPP) and endometriosis focus on surgery or hormone medication, but these are often ineffective or associated with unacceptable side-effects. As a result, women continue to experience chronic pain and often have 'flares' of worsening pain that may lead to hospital admission. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in backlogged gynaecology clinics and surgeries. The aim of this study was to compare the management of emergency pelvic pain admissions for women with CPP before and after COVID-19. We also aimed to better understand their in-hospital management and estimate their hospital length of stay costs. We did not find an increase in CPP patients admitted for pelvic pain flares after the COVID-19 lockdown. Women with CPP often undergo multiple hospital tests and are often prescribed with strong pain medications which can cause long-term problems. Efforts are needed to improve long-term pain management for women with CPP.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland. METHODS: We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study. METHODS: Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo. FINDINGS: Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.

Generating EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: a mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data.

BACKGROUND: Preference-based health-state utility values (HSUVs), such as the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), are needed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for cost-effectiveness analyses. However, these are rarely used in clinical trials of interventions in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In these cases, mapping can be used to predict HSUVs. OBJECTIVE: To develop mapping algorithms to estimate EQ-5D-5L HSUVs from the Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI). METHODS: Data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) provided 5122 observations with complete BASDAI, BASFI, and EQ-5D-5L responses covering the full range of disease severity. We compared direct mapping using adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models (ALDVMMs) and optional inclusion of the gap between full health and the next feasible value with indirect response mapping using ordered probit (OPROBIT) and generalised ordered probit (GOPROBIT) models. Explanatory variables included BASDAI, BASFI, and age. Metrics to assess model goodness-of-fit and performance/accuracy included Akaike and Bayesian information criteria (AIC/BIC), mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE), plotting predictive vs. observed estimates across the range of BASDAI/BASFI and comparing simulated data with the original data set for the preferred/best model. RESULTS: Overall, the ALDVMM models that did not formally include the gap between full health and the next feasible value outperformed those that did. The four-component mixture models (with squared terms included) performed better than the three-component models. Response mapping using GOPROBIT (no squared terms included) or OPROBIT (with squared terms included) offered the next best performing models after the three-component ALDVMM (with squared terms). Simulated data of the preferred model (ALDVMM with four-components) did not significantly underestimate uncertainty across most of the range of EQ-5D-5L values, however the proportion of data at full health was underrepresented, likely due in part to model fitting on a small number of observations at this point in the actual data (4%). CONCLUSIONS: The mapping algorithms developed in this study enabled the generation of EQ-5D-5L utilities from BASDAI/BASFI. The indirect mapping equations reported for the EQ-5D-5L facilitate the calculation of the EQ-5D-5L utility scores using other UK and country-specific value sets.

Exercise as an Airway Clearance Technique in people with Cystic Fibrosis (ExACT-CF): rationale and study protocol for a randomised pilot trial.

Background: Chest physiotherapy is an established cornerstone of care for people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF), but is often burdensome. Guidelines recommend at least one chest physiotherapy session daily, using various airway clearance techniques (ACTs). Exercise (with huffs and coughs) may offer an alternative ACT, however the willingness of pwCF to be randomised into a trial needs testing. The 'ExACT-CF: Exercise as an Airway Clearance Technique in people with Cystic Fibrosis' trial will test the feasibility of recruiting pwCF to be randomised to continue usual care (chest physiotherapy) or replace it with exercise ACT (ExACT) for 28-days. Secondary aims include determining the short-term clinical impact (and safety) of stopping routine chest physiotherapy and replacing it with ExACT, and effects on physical activity, sleep, mood, quality of life and treatment burden, alongside preliminary health economic measures and acceptability. Methods: Multi-centre, two-arm, randomised (1:1 allocation using minimisation), pilot trial at two sites. Fifty pwCF (≥10 years, FEV 1 >40% predicted, stable on Elexacaftor/Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor (ETI)) will be randomised to an individually-customised ExACT programme (≥once daily aerobic exercise of ≥20-minutes duration at an intensity that elicits deep breathing, with huffs and coughs), or usual care. After baseline assessments, secondary outcomes will be assessed after 28-days, with additional home lung function and exacerbation questionnaires at 7, 14 and 21-days, physical activity and sleep monitoring throughout, and embedded qualitative and health-economic components. Feasibility measures include recruitment, retention, measurement completion, adverse events, interviews exploring the acceptability of trial procedures, and a trial satisfaction questionnaire. Discussion: Co-designed with the UK CF community, the ExACT-CF pilot trial is the first multi-centre RCT to test the feasibility of recruiting pwCF stable on ETI into a trial investigating ExACT. This pilot trial will inform the feasibility, design, management, likely external validity for progression to a main phase randomised controlled trial. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT05482048).

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the UK's most common inherited genetic condition and affects > 10,500 people. CF causes problems with the movement of salt and water in the body, resulting in sticky mucus building up, mostly in the lungs and gut. Thick mucus in the airways leads to repeated infections which can damage the lungs. Chest physiotherapy is routinely prescribed to keep pwCF healthy, by loosening and clearing sticky, thick mucus from the airways. However, many find it time-consuming and burdensome. People with CF (pwCF) have asked if doing exercise could have the same effect for clearing mucus. Surveys show that many pwCF have occasionally replaced chest physiotherapy with exercise for airway clearance. We also showed that many pwCF, their families, physiotherapists and doctors in the UK consider that hard exercise with huffs and coughs may be able to clear mucus from the airways. We now need to know if they would be willing to take part in research that asks some to stop chest physiotherapy and do intense exercise with huffs and coughs instead. We will study 50 pwCF (> 10 years old) for 28 days. We will ask half to continue their usual care, and half to stop chest physiotherapy and do exercise that gets them breathing deeply (with huffs and coughs) instead. We will see if people are willing to start and continue with such a study and what they think of the processes. We will also see how stopping chest physiotherapy and replacing it with exercise affects measurements of their lung function. Within the study we will talk with pwCF and members of their CF team to understand their experiences. This information will tell us whether a larger study can answer whether certain forms of exercise can safely be used as an alternative to chest physiotherapy.

The Arabin pessary to prevent preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix: the STOPPIT 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is common in twins and accounts for significant mortality and morbidity. There are no effective preventative treatments. Some studies have suggested that, in twin pregnancy complicated by a short cervix, the Arabin pessary, which fits around the cervix and can be inserted as an outpatient procedure, reduces preterm birth and prevents neonatal morbidity. OBJECTIVE: STOPPIT 2 aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of the Arabin cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. DESIGN: STOPPIT 2 was a pragmatic, open label, multicentre randomised controlled trial with two treatment group - the Arabin pessary plus standard care (intervention) and standard care alone (control). Participants were initially recruited into the screening phase of the study, when cervical length was measured. Women with a measured cervical length of ≤ 35 mm were then recruited into the treatment phase of the study. An economic evaluation considered cost-effectiveness and a qualitative substudy explored the experiences of participants and clinicians. SETTING: Antenatal clinics in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Women with twin pregnancy at < 21 weeks' gestation with known chorionicity and gestation established by scan at ≤ 16 weeks' gestation. INTERVENTIONS: Ultrasound scan to establish cervical length. Women with a cervical length of ≤ 35 mm at 18+ 0-20+ 6 weeks' gestation were randomised to standard care or Arabin pessary plus standard care. Randomisation was performed by computer and accessed through a web-based browser. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Obstetric - all births before 34+ 0 weeks' gestation following the spontaneous onset of labour; and neonatal - composite of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth or neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, early respiratory morbidity, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis or proven sepsis, all measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery. RESULTS: A total of 2228 participants were recruited to the screening phase, of whom 2170 received a scan and 503 were randomised: 250 to Arabin pessary and 253 to standard care alone. The rate of the primary obstetric outcome was 18.4% (46/250) in the intervention group and 20.6% (52/253) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.38; p = 0.54). The rate of the primary neonatal outcome was 13.4% (67/500) and 15.0% (76/506) in the intervention group and control group, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.36; p = 0.52). The pessary was largely well tolerated and clinicians found insertion and removal 'easy' or 'fairly easy' in the majority of instances. The simple costs analysis showed that pessary treatment is no more costly than standard care. LIMITATIONS: There was the possibility of a type II error around smaller than anticipated benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the Arabin pessary did not reduce preterm birth or adverse neonatal outcomes in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. The pessary either is ineffective at reducing preterm birth or has an effect size of < 0.4. FUTURE WORK: Women with twin pregnancy remain at risk of preterm birth; work is required to find treatments for this. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98835694 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235181. 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. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Women who are pregnant with twins have a much higher risk of going into labour early and having an early (preterm) birth than women who are pregnant with only one baby. For this reason, babies who are twins are much more likely to die or to have serious health complications in the first months of life. Although we know that women with twin pregnancy are at risk, there are no treatments that are recommended to prevent early births. Some studies have suggested that the Arabin pessary can help. The Arabin pessary is a silicone ring that fits around the cervix (neck of the womb). The pessary can be put in place in a clinic without any need for an anaesthetic. Some studies have suggested that the Arabin pessary helps and others have suggested that it does not. It appears to be most helpful when the cervix (neck of the womb) is already shortening. Shortening of the neck of the womb is a sign that early birth is even more likely. We asked women with twin pregnancy to take part in STOPPIT 2. Women who agreed had an ultrasound scan of the neck of the womb, which measured its length. Those with a short cervix were randomised to be offered the Arabin pessary (in addition to standard care) or standard care alone. This allocation was carried out 'at random' by a computer. We followed women up until the end of their pregnancy and collected information on the babies' health after birth. We found that the Arabin pessary did not reduce the risk of an early birth; nor did it reduce the risk of health complications for the baby. We conclude that the Arabin pessary should not be used for this purpose.

The BSR-PsA: study protocol for the British Society for Rheumatology psoriatic arthritis register.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) presents a unique clinical challenge. Affecting joints, skin, nails, and other organs, it is associated with various comorbidities and has a significant impact on quality of life, social participation and working life. While biologic and other targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs and tsDMARDs) have revolutionised therapy, questions remain about the long-term safety of these agents, and their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in the real-world clinical setting. METHODS/DESIGN: The British Society for Rheumatology Psoriatic Arthritis Register (BSR-PsA) is a prospective registry of patients with PsA, recruited from across Great Britain, who are (a) commencing a bDMARD/tsDMARD; or (b) naïve to all bDMARDs/tsDMARDs. Ethical approval was given by the NHS West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 3 (reference: 18/WS/0126). Clinical data are extracted from participants' medical records, including symptom onset and diagnosis, joint, skin and nail symptoms, dactylitis and enthesitis. Physical measurements (height, weight and 66/68 joint counts) and a detailed drug history are taken. Participants are also asked to complete questionnaires comprising instruments relating to general health and quality of life, axial disease, sleep and fatigue, impact of disease, functional status, mental health, other symptoms, and occupational status. The study duration is 5 years in the first instance, and all participants are followed up annually until the end of the study. Participants commencing a bDMARD/tsDMARD are also followed up three and six months after the start of therapy. Disease activity, including C-reactive protein, is assessed at each visit; and participants from some centres are invited to donate blood and urine samples for the creation of a biobank. DISCUSSION: Complementing data from randomised trials, results from this study will contribute to the evidence base underpinning the clinical management of psoriatic arthritis. Various analyses will determine the effectiveness and safety of bDMARDs/tsDMARDs in the real-world, will examine the clinical and biological predictors of treatment response, and will provide real-world data on the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, as well as providing informative data important to patients such as quality of life and occupational outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The full study protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/jzs8n ).

Cost-utility of maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal arm pain: an economic evaluation of data from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Arm pain is common, costly to health services and society. Physiotherapy referral is standard management, and while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest, but the evidence base is weak. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of advice to remain active (AA) versus advice to rest (AR); and immediate physiotherapy (IP) versus usual care (waiting list) physiotherapy (UCP). METHODS: Twenty-six-week within-trial economic evaluation (538 participants aged ≥18 years randomized to usual care, i.e. AA (n = 178), AR (n = 182) or IP (n = 178). Regression analysis estimated differences in mean costs and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Primary analysis comprised the 193 patients with complete resource use (UK NHS perspective) and EQ-5D data. Sensitivity analysis investigated uncertainty. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted cost differences were £88 [95% confidence interval (CI): -14, 201) AA versus AR; -£14 (95% CI: -87, 66) IP versus UCP. Baseline-adjusted QALY differences were 0.0095 (95% CI: -0.0140, 0.0344) AA versus AR; 0.0143 (95% CI: -0.0077, 0.0354) IP versus UCP. There was a 71 and 89% probability that AA (versus AR) and IP (versus UCP) were the most cost-effective option using a threshold of £20,000 per additional QALY.  The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: The difference in mean costs and mean QALYs between the competing strategies was small and not statistically significant. However, decision-makers may judge that IP was not shown to be any more effective than delayed treatment, and was no more costly than delayed physiotherapy. AA is preferable to one that encourages AR, as it is more effective and more likely to be cost-effective than AR.

Pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care: costs and benefits in a pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To explore differences in mean costs (from a UK National Health Service perspective) and effects of pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care evaluated in a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), and to estimate optimal sample size for a definitive RCT. DESIGN: Regression analysis of costs and effects, using intention-to-treat and expected value of sample information analysis (EVSI). SETTING: Six general practices: Grampian (3); East Anglia (3). PARTICIPANTS: 125 patients with complete resource use and short form-six-dimension questionnaire (SF-6D) data at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to either pharmacist medication review with face-to-face pharmacist prescribing or pharmacist medication review with feedback to general practitioner or treatment as usual (TAU). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in mean total costs and effects measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months and EVSI for sample size calculation. RESULTS: Unadjusted total mean costs per patient were £452 for prescribing (SD: £466), £570 for review (SD: £527) and £668 for TAU (SD: £1333). After controlling for baseline costs, the adjusted mean cost differences per patient relative to TAU were £77 for prescribing (95% CI -82 to 237) and £54 for review (95% CI -103 to 212). Unadjusted mean QALYs were 0.3213 for prescribing (SD: 0.0659), 0.3161 for review (SD: 0.0684) and 0.3079 for TAU (SD: 0.0606). Relative to TAU, the adjusted mean differences were 0.0069 for prescribing (95% CI -0.0091 to 0.0229) and 0.0097 for review (95% CI -0.0054 to 0.0248). The EVSI suggested the optimal future trial size was between 460 and 690, and between 540 and 780 patients per arm using a threshold of £30,000 and £20,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TAU, pharmacist-led interventions for chronic pain appear more costly and provide similar QALYs. However, these estimates are imprecise due to the small size of the pilot trial. The EVSI indicates that a larger trial is necessary to obtain more precise estimates of differences in mean effects and costs between treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06131530.

Cost-effectiveness of etanercept in patients with severe ankylosing spondylitis in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of etanercept (ETN) plus usual care (including NSAIDs) compared with usual care alone (including NSAIDs) in patients with severe AS in Germany. METHODS: A mathematical model previously applied to the UK was adapted using resource use and cost data (for 2007) from the national database of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres. Social health insurance (SHI) and societal perspectives were analysed. Assumptions on initial response and changes in health-related quality of life were based on Phase III randomized controlled trials. Initial treatment response according to British Society for Rheumatology guidelines were assumed as a conservative estimate in the German context. Long-term disease progression was based on the available literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as euros/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for a cohort of 1000 patients over 25 years. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in results. RESULTS: In the base case, ETN plus usual care (including NSAIDs) yielded 1475 more QALYs at an additional cost of €80,827,668 (SHI) or €32,657,590 (societal) leading to an ICER of €54,815/QALY and €22,147/QALY, respectively. Over a shorter time horizon of 10 years, the ICERs were €59,006 and €29,815 for SHI and societal viewpoints, respectively. Assumptions having the largest impact on results included withdrawal rates from ETN, quality of life, disease costs and initial response. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness for ETN in patients with severe AS in Germany differs according to the cost perspective. Study estimates were higher than in the UK but comparable with reported cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF treatments in patients with RA in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin M-enriched immunoglobulin (Pentaglobin) in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock.

PURPOSE: To measure the cost-effectiveness of a specific polyclonal intravenous immune globulin preparation (Pentaglobin) in adult patients treated for severe sepsis and septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials (N=435) were used to populate a decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Pentaglobin and its comparator standard therapy from the hospital perspective in Germany. PRIMARY OUTCOME: all-cause morality; secondary outcome: intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Benefit was expressed as lives saved (LS). Published cost data were applied to assess differences in ICU treatment costs. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as incremental cost per LS. RESULTS: Pentaglobin reduced the risk of mortality (P<.001) but had no effect on ICU length of stay. A baseline risk of mortality of 0.4434 (risk ratio=0.5652; absolute risk reduction=0.1928; number-needed-to-treat=5.19) increased ICU treatment costs with Pentaglobin by 2,037 (22,711 vs 24,747) with a cost per LS of 10,565. Sensitivity analyses on baseline mortality risk (95% confidence interval 0.3293-0.5162) and risk ratio (95% confidence interval 0.4306-0.7420) yielded a cost per LS range of 5,715 to 28,443 with a 56.3% probability of cost-effectiveness of 12,000 or less. CONCLUSIONS: Pentaglobin is a promising adjuvant therapy both clinically and economically for treatment of adults with severe sepsis and septic shock.

A new concept for DRG-based reimbursement of services in German intensive care units: results of a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate LOS in developing a concept of borderline ICU LOS for a realistic reimbursement of intensive care. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of LOS and cost data extracted from patients' electronic records. SETTING: Surgical ICU of the University Hospital Göttingen, Germany. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: All adult ICU admissions with LOS >24 h over a 24-month period (1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001; n=1631.) INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Cluster analysis partitioned the ICU population into three homogeneous groups based on ICU LOS and total direct costs: cluster 1 (n=1405; mean LOS=2.8; mean cost= Euro 2399); cluster 2 (n=190; mean LOS=13.4; mean cost=Euro 12,754); cluster 3 (n=36; mean LOS=34.9; mean cost= Euro 34,173). Cost distribution between cluster 1 and clusters 2 and 3 combined was 48 vs 52%. Upper 95 percentile LOS of 6.7 allowed cluster 1 to be replaced by an LOS profile population of < or = 7 days population (n=1355; 96% population and 91% total ICU cost overlap with cluster 1) representing 83% of total ICU population and 44% of total ICU costs. Stratification of >7 day population into LOS less than or >20 days (n=220; n=56) were further differentiated by mortality (11 vs 23%) and sepsis incidence (33 vs 79%). CONCLUSIONS: It may be feasible to formulate a LOS-based reimbursement scheme for ICU services in Germany based on the selection of (appropriate) patients' ICU LOS profiles.

Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for the treatment of severe sepsis in Germany.

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) significantly reduced mortality in severe sepsis in the PROWESS trial. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) as an adjunct to standard therapy from the German healthcare payer's perspective with respect to patients with 1) severe sepsis and 2) severe sepsis and multiple organ failure the approved European indication. Hospital resource use based on PROWESS was valued using German unit costs. German life-tables and long-term survival assumptions determined life-years gained. European and German healthcare resource use data are examined in the sensitivity analysis. We assumed a unit price of euro;237.50 for drotrecogin alfa (activated). Per patient treated, drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased costs by euro;7,500, and hospital costs by euro;900 for all patients (euro;7,400 and euro;1,500 respectively for the approved indication) and survival by 0.59 life years (0.87 life years respectively for the approved indication). Thus drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost euro;14,100 (euro;17,700 discounting life years at 3%) per life year gained for all patients (euro;10,200 and euro;12,900, respectively, for the approved indication). Testing the unit cost of drotrecogin alfa (activated), pattern of resource use, and survival benefit, demonstrated that cost-effectiveness lies well within the range of other life saving interventions in Germany representing good economic value.