Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models. METHODS: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations. RESULTS: The Non-p performed the best (R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R2 = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R2 = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

The cost effectiveness of personalized dietary advice to increase protein intake in older adults with lower habitual protein intake: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To examine the cost effectiveness of dietary advice to increase protein intake on 6-month change in physical functioning among older adults. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 276 community-dwelling older adults with a habitual protein intake < 1.0 g/kg adjusted body weight (aBW)/d were randomly assigned to either Intervention 1; advice to increase protein intake to ≥ 1.2 g/kg aBW/d (PROT, n = 96), Intervention 2; similar advice and in addition advice to consume protein (en)rich(ed) foods within half an hour after usual physical activity (PROT + TIMING, n = 89), or continue the habitual diet with no advice (CON, n = 91). Primary outcome was 6-month change in 400-m walk time. Secondary outcomes were 6-month change in physical performance, leg extension strength, grip strength, body composition, self-reported mobility limitations and quality of life. We evaluated cost effectiveness from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Compared to CON, a positive effect on walk time was observed for PROT; - 12.4 s (95%CI, - 21.8 to - 2.9), and for PROT + TIMING; - 4.9 s (95%CI, - 14.5 to 4.7). Leg extension strength significantly increased in PROT (+ 32.6 N (95%CI, 10.6-54.5)) and PROT + TIMING (+ 24.3 N (95%CI, 0.2-48.5)) compared to CON. No significant intervention effects were observed for the other secondary outcomes. From a societal perspective, PROT was cost effective compared to CON. CONCLUSION: Dietary advice to increase protein intake to ≥ 1.2 g/kg aBW/d improved 400-m walk time and leg strength among older adults with a lower habitual protein intake. From a societal perspective, PROT was considered cost-effective compared to CON. These findings support the need for re-evaluating the protein RDA of 0.8 g/kg BW/d for older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03712306). Date of registration: October 2018. Registry name: The (Cost) Effectiveness of Increasing Protein Intake on Physical Functioning in Older Adults. Trial Identifier: NCT03712306.

Can EQ-5D-3L utility values of low back pain patients be validly predicted by the Oswestry Disability Index for use in cost-effectiveness analyses?

PURPOSE: To assess whether regression modeling can be used to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in low back pain (LBP) patients for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: EQ-5D-3L utility values of LBP patients were estimated using their ODI scores as independent variables using regression analyses, while adjusting for case-mix variables. Six different models were estimated: (1) Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, with total ODI score, (2) OLS, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, (3) OLS, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables, (4) Tobit model, with total ODI score, (5) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as continuous variables, and (6) Tobit model, with ODI item scores as ordinal variables. The models' performance was assessed using explained variance (R2) and root mean squared error (RMSE). The potential impact of using predicted instead of observed EQ-5D-3L utility values on cost-effectiveness outcomes was evaluated in two empirical cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Complete individual patient data of 18,692 low back pain patients were analyzed. All models had a more or less similar R2 (range 45-52%) and RMSE (range 0.21-0.22). The two best performing models produced similar probabilities of cost-effectiveness for a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values compared to those based on the observed EQ-5D-3L values. For example, the difference in probabilities ranged from 2 to 5% at a WTP of 50,000 €/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the ODI can be validly used to predict low back pain patients' EQ-5D-3L utility values and QALYs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Assessing the Impact of EQ-5D Country-specific Value Sets on Cost-utility Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of EQ-5D country-specific value sets on cost-utility outcomes. METHODS: Data from 2 randomized controlled trials on low back pain (LBP) and depression were used. 3L value sets were identified from the EuroQol Web site. A nonparametric crosswalk was employed for each tariff to obtain the likely 5L values. Differences in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between countries were tested using paired t tests, with United Kingdom as reference. Cost-utility outcomes were estimated for both studies and both EQ-5D versions, including differences in QALYs and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: For the 3L, QALYs ranged between 0.650 (Taiwan) and 0.892 (United States) in the LBP study and between 0.619 (Taiwan) and 0.879 (United States) in the depression study. In both studies, most country-specific QALY estimates differed statistically significantly from that of the United Kingdom. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between &OV0556;2044/QALY (Taiwan) and &OV0556;5897/QALY (Zimbabwe) in the LBP study and between &OV0556;38,287/QALY (Singapore) and &OV0556;96,550/QALY (Japan) in the depression study. At the NICE threshold of &OV0556;23,300/QALY (≈£20,000/QALY), the intervention's probability of being cost-effective versus control ranged between 0.751 (Zimbabwe) and 0.952 (Taiwan) and between 0.230 (Canada) and 0.396 (Singapore) in the LBP study and depression study, respectively. Similar results were found for the 5L, with extensive differences in ICERs and moderate differences in the probability of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the use of different EQ-5D country-specific value sets impacts on cost-utility outcomes. Therefore, to account for the fact that health state preferences are affected by sociocultural differences, relevant country-specific value sets should be used.

Comparing the EQ-5D-5L crosswalks and value sets for England, the Netherlands and Spain: Exploring their impact on cost-utility results.

This study compares the five-level EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) crosswalks and the 5L value sets for England, the Netherlands, and Spain and explores the implication of using one or the other for the results of cost-utility analyses. Data from two randomized controlled trials in depression and diabetes were used. Utility value distributions were compared, and mean differences in utility values between the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk and the 5L value set were described by country. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the area-under-the-curve method. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and uncertainty around ICERs was estimated using bootstrapping and graphically shown in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. For all countries investigated, utility value distributions differed between the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk and 5L value set. In both case studies, mean utility values were lower for the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk compared with the 5L value set in England and Spain, but higher in the Netherlands. However, these differences in utility values did not translate into relevant differences across utility estimation methods in incremental QALYs and the interventions' probability of cost-effectiveness. Thus, our results suggest that EQ-5D-5L crosswalks and 5L value sets can be used interchangeably in patients affected by mild or moderate conditions. Further research is needed to establish whether these findings are generalizable to economic evaluations among severely ill patients.

Diagnostic performance of retinal digital photography for diabetic retinopathy screening in primary care.

Introduction: We must study alternatives to structure an effective diabetic retinopathy screening program for Brazilian public health system. Objectives: Evaluate the diagnostic performance of retinal digital photography for diabetic retinopathy screening in primary care, accuracy of the family physician in diabetic retinopathy identification compared to the ophthalmologist, and the need for dilation. Methodology: In a primary care service were performed retinal photographs with non-mydriatic Retinal Camera in 219 type 2 diabetic patients with and without medication mydriasis. We evaluated the performance of the diagnostic of the photos graded by three family physicians with training compared to two ophthalmologists (gold standard), and explore related factors with the need for mydriasis pharmacologically. Results: The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 19.2% and 1.5%, respectively. The sensitivity of family physicians to evaluate diabetic retinopathy averaged 82.9% (66.7-94.8%); specificity, 92% (90.2-93.3%); the accuracy, 90.3% (88.2-93%) and positive predictive value, 71.2% (68-75.5%). The agreement calculated using the kappa adjusted coefficient was from 0.74 to 0.8 for retinopathy and 0.88 to 0.92 for macular edema. Without drug mydriasis the photos were unreadable by 14.8%, when using mydriatic collyrium this number decreased to 8.7% (McNemar test, P < 0.005). Patients with more than 65 years old has more readability after drug mydriasis (McNemar test, P = 0.011). Conclusion: Trained family physician reached a good performance for evaluation of retinography for diabetic retinopathy. There was improvement in readability with pupil dilation in older patients.

Antenatal cardiotocography in primary midwife-led care: a budget impact analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, the healthcare sector is dealing with important challenges such as increased demand for healthcare services, capacity problems in hospitals and rising healthcare costs. Therefore, one of the aims of the Dutch government is to move care from in-hospital to out-of-hospital care settings. An example of an innovation where care is moved from a more specialised setting to a less specialised setting is the performance of an antenatal cardiotocography (aCTG) in primary midwife-led care. The aim of this study was to assess the budget impact of implementing aCTG for healthy pregnant women in midwife-led care compared with usual obstetrician-led care in the Netherlands. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the actual costs and reimbursement of aCTG performed in midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care (ie, base-case analysis) from the Dutch healthcare perspective. Epidemiological and healthcare utilisation data describing both care pathways were obtained from a prospective cohort, survey and national databases. Different implementation rates of aCTG in midwife-led care were explored. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the budget impact estimates. RESULTS: Shifting aCTG from obstetrician-led care to midwife-led-care would increase actual costs with €311 763 (97.5% CI €188 574 to €426 072) and €1 247 052 (97.5% CI €754 296 to €1 704 290) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively, while it would decrease reimbursement with -€7 538 335 (97.5% CI -€10 302 306 to -€4 559 661) and -€30 153 342 (97.5% CI -€41 209 225 to -€18 238 645) for implementation rates of 25% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were consistent with those of the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: From the Dutch healthcare perspective, we estimated that implementing aCTG in midwife-led care may increase the associated actual costs. At the same time, it might lower the healthcare reimbursement.

Investigating the Effectiveness of Care Delivery at an Acute Geriatric Community Hospital for Older Adults in the Netherlands: A Prospective Controlled Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital admission in older adults is associated with unwanted outcomes such as readmission, institutionalization, and functional decline. To reduce these outcomes, the Netherlands introduced an alternative to hospital-based care: the Acute Geriatric Community Hospital (AGCH). The AGCH is an acute care unit situated outside of a hospital focusing on early rehabilitation and comprehensive geriatric assessment. The objective of this study was to evaluate if AGCH care is associated with decreasing unplanned readmissions or death compared with hospital-based care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study controlled with a historic cohort. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A (sub)acute care unit (AGCH) and 6 hospitals in the Netherlands; participants were acutely ill older adults. METHODS: We used inverse propensity score weighting to account for baseline differences. The primary outcome was 90-day readmission or death. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission or death, time to death, admission to long-term residential care, occurrence of falls and functioning over time. Generalized logistic regression models and multilevel regression analyses were used to estimate effects. RESULTS: AGCH patients (n = 206) had lower 90-day readmission or death rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.23-0.67] compared to patients treated in hospital (n = 401). AGCH patients had a lower risk of 90-day readmission (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21-0.67) but did not differ on all-cause mortality (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44-1.79) compared with the hospital control group. AGCH patients had lower 30-day readmission or death rates. Secondary outcomes did not differ. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: AGCH patients had lower rates of readmission and/or death than patients treated in a hospital. Our results support further research on the implementation and cost-effectiveness of AGCH in the Netherlands and other countries seeking alternatives to hospital-based care.

Predicting direct healthcare costs of general practitioner-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal complaints.

ABSTRACT: Information on healthcare utilization and costs of general practitioner (GP)-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal complaints is important for keeping healthcare affordable and accessible. A registry-based study was performed to describe healthcare utilization and costs of GP-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal complaints and to predict having higher direct healthcare costs. Healthcare costs of GP-guided care included all healthcare resources used by patients due to a musculoskeletal condition in 2018. Data were extracted from the database with a 1-year follow-up and descriptively analyzed. A general linear model was developed to predict having higher direct healthcare costs. In total, 403,719 patients were included, of whom 92% only received a single consultation. The number of referrals varied across the different types of complaints. Total annual direct healthcare costs amounted to €39,180,531, of which a key cost driver was referrals. Primary care consultations accounted for the largest part of referral-related costs. For all musculoskeletal conditions combined, the mean annual direct healthcare cost per patient was €97 (SEM = €0.18). Older age, being a woman, low socioeconomic status, spine complaints, high number of musculoskeletal diagnoses, and a high comorbidity score were predictive of having higher direct healthcare costs and explained 0.7% of the variance. This study showed that mean annual direct healthcare costs of GP-guided care in patients with musculoskeletal conditions were relatively low and did not differ considerably across conditions. The predictive model explained a negligible part of the variance in costs. Thus, it is unclear which factors do predict high direct healthcare costs in this population.

Cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy versus surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised non-inferiority controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pessary therapy as an initial treatment option compared with surgery for moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms in secondary care from a healthcare and a societal perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 24-month follow-up. SETTING: 21 hospitals in the Netherlands, recruitment conducted between 2015 and 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1605 women referred to secondary care with symptomatic prolapse stage ≥2 were requested to participate. Of them, 440 women gave informed consent and were randomised to pessary therapy (n=218) or to surgery (n=222) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Pessary therapy and surgery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), a 7-point scale dichotomised into successful versus unsuccessful, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-3L; healthcare and societal costs were based on medical records and the institute for Medical Technology Assessment questionnaires. RESULTS: For the PGI-I, the mean difference between pessary therapy and surgery was -0.05 (95% CI -0.14; 0.03) and -0.03 (95% CI -0.07; 0.002) for QALYs. In total, 54.1% women randomised to pessary therapy crossed over to surgery, and 3.6% underwent recurrent surgery. Healthcare and societal costs were significantly lower in the pessary therapy (mean difference=-€1807, 95% CI -€2172; -€1446 and mean difference=-€1850, 95% CI -€2349; -€1341, respectively). The probability that pessary therapy is cost-effective compared with surgery was 1 at willingness-to-pay thresholds between €0 and €20 000/QALY gained from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of pessary therapy regarding the PGI-I could not be shown and no statistically significant differences in QALYs between interventions were found. Due to significantly lower costs, pessary therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with surgery as an initial treatment option for women with symptomatic POP treated in secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4883.

Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: The EQ-5D-Y-3L is a generic measure of health-related quality of life in children and adolescents. Although the Brazilian-Portuguese EQ-5D-Y-3L version is available, there is no value set for it, hampering its use in economic evaluations. This study aimed to elicit a Brazilian EQ-5D-Y-3L value set based on preferences of the general adult population. METHODS: Two independent samples of adults participated in an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey and a composite time trade-off (cTTO) face-to-face interview. The framing was "considering your views for a 10-year-old child". DCE data were analyzed using a mixed-logit model. The 243 DCE predicted values were mapped into the observed 28 cTTO values using linear and non-linear mapping approaches with and without intercept. Mapping approaches' performance was assessed to estimate the most valid method to rescale DCE predicted values using the model fit (R2), Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). RESULTS: A representative sample of 1376 Brazilian adults participated (DCE, 1152; cTTO, 211). The linear mapping without intercept (R2 = 96%; AIC, - 44; RMSE, 0.0803; MAE, - 0.0479) outperformed the non-linear without intercept (R2 = 98%; AIC, - 63; RMSE, 0.1385; MAE, - 0.1320). Utilities ranged from 1 (full health) to - 0.0059 (the worst health state). Highest weights were assigned to having pain or discomfort (pain/discomfort), followed by walking about (mobility), looking after myself (self-care), doing usual activities (usual activities), and feeling worried, sad, or unhappy (anxiety/depression). CONCLUSION: This study elicited the Brazilian EQ-5D-Y-3L value set using a mixed-logit DCE model with a power parameter based on a linear mapping without intercept, which can be used to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years for economic evaluations of health technologies targeting the Brazilian youth population.

To what extent does the use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets impact reimbursement decisions?: a simulation study.

PURPOSE: Inconsistent results have been found on the impact of using crosswalks versus EQ-5D value sets on reimbursement decisions. We sought to further investigate this issue in a simulation study. METHODS: Trial-based economic evaluation data were simulated for different conditions (depression, low back pain, osteoarthritis, cancer), severity levels (mild, moderate, severe), and effect sizes (small, medium, large). For all 36 scenarios, utilities were calculated using 3L and 5L value sets and crosswalks (3L to 5L and 5L to 3L crosswalks) for the Netherlands, the United States, and Japan. Utilities, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and probabilities of cost-effectiveness (pCE) obtained from values sets and crosswalks were compared. RESULTS: Differences between value sets and crosswalks ranged from -0.33 to 0.13 for utilities, from -0.18 to 0.13 for QALYs, and from -0.01 to 0.08 for incremental QALYs, resulting in different ICERs. For small effect sizes, at a willingness-to-pay of €20,000/QALY, the largest pCE difference was found for moderate cancer between the Japanese 5L value set and 5L to 3L crosswalk (difference = 0.63). For medium effect sizes, the largest difference was found for mild cancer between the Japanese 3L value set and 3L to 5L crosswalk (difference = 0.06). For large effect sizes, the largest difference was found for mild osteoarthritis between the Japanese 3L value set and 3L to 5L crosswalk (difference = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The use of crosswalks instead of EQ-5D value sets can impact cost-utility outcomes to such an extent that this may influence reimbursement decisions.

Conducting Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Using R: A Tutorial.

Trial-based economic evaluations are increasingly being conducted to support healthcare decision-making. When analysing trial-based economic evaluation data, different methodological challenges may be encountered, including (i) missing data, (ii) correlated costs and effects, (iii) baseline imbalances and (iv) skewness of costs and/or effects. Despite the broad range of methods available to account for these methodological challenges in effectiveness studies, they may not always be directly applicable in trial-based economic evaluations where costs and effects are analysed jointly, and more than one methodological challenge typically needs to be addressed simultaneously. The use of inappropriate methods can bias results and conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Eventually, such low-quality evidence can hamper healthcare decision-making, which may in turn result in a waste of already scarce healthcare resources. Therefore, this tutorial aims to provide step-by-step guidance on how to combine appropriate statistical methods for handling the abovementioned methodological challenges using a ready-to-use R script. The theoretical background of the described methods is provided, and their application is illustrated using a simulated trial-based economic evaluation.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Minimal Ovarian Stimulation in-vitro Fertilization versus Conventional Ovarian Stimulation in Poor Responders: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Propensity Score Adjusted Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Information on the pregnancy rate after successive in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and their associated costs is relevant for couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ARTs). This study, therefore, sought to investigate the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of two ARTs, the minimal ovarian stimulation IVF (MS-IVF) compared to the conventional ovarian stimulation IVF (C-IVF) from the payer's perspective. METHODS: A 10-months follow-up prospective observational study was conducted in a sample of couples who sought ARTs in a private clinic in Southern Brazil. Women had to satisfy the Bologna Criteria and be older than 35 years. The effect outcome was pregnancy rate per initiated cycle. Medication costs were based on medical records. Costs and effect differences were estimated using seemingly unrelated regressions adjusted for the propensity score estimated based on women's characteristics. RESULTS: All 84 eligible women who agreed to participate received a total of 92 IVF cycles (MS-IVF, n=27[35 cycles]; C-IVF n=57[57 cycles]. The effect difference between MS-IVF and C-IVF was -5.1% (95%CI, -13.2 to 5.2). Medication costs of MS-IVF were significantly lower than C-IVF by €-1260 (95%CI, -1401 to -1118). The probabilities of MS-IVF being cost-effective compared to C-IVF ranged from 1 to 0.76 for willingness-to-pay of €0 to €15,000 per established pregnancy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even though there were no positive effect differences between groups, MS-IVF might be cost-effective compared to C-IVF from the payer's perspective due to its relatively large cost savings compared to C-IVF. However, further investigation is needed to confirm these findings in a larger sample.

The handling of missing data in trial-based economic evaluations: should data be multiply imputed prior to longitudinal linear mixed-model analyses?

INTRODUCTION: For the analysis of clinical effects, multiple imputation (MI) of missing data were shown to be unnecessary when using longitudinal linear mixed-models (LLM). It remains unclear whether this also applies to trial-based economic evaluations. Therefore, this study aimed to assess whether MI is required prior to LLM when analyzing longitudinal cost and effect data. METHODS: Two-thousand complete datasets were simulated containing five time points. Incomplete datasets were generated with 10, 25, and 50% missing data in follow-up costs and effects, assuming a Missing At Random (MAR) mechanism. Six different strategies were compared using empirical bias (EB), root-mean-squared error (RMSE), and coverage rate (CR). These strategies were: LLM alone (LLM) and MI with LLM (MI-LLM), and, as reference strategies, mean imputation with LLM (M-LLM), seemingly unrelated regression alone (SUR-CCA), MI with SUR (MI-SUR), and mean imputation with SUR (M-SUR). RESULTS: For costs and effects, LLM, MI-LLM, and MI-SUR performed better than M-LLM, SUR-CCA, and M-SUR, with smaller EBs and RMSEs as well as CRs closers to nominal levels. However, even though LLM, MI-LLM and MI-SUR performed equally well for effects, MI-LLM and MI-SUR were found to perform better than LLM for costs at 10 and 25% missing data. At 50% missing data, all strategies resulted in relatively high EBs and RMSEs for costs. CONCLUSION: LLM should be combined with MI when analyzing trial-based economic evaluation data. MI-SUR is more efficient and can also be used, but then an average intervention effect over time cannot be estimated.

Health-related quality of life associated with diabetic retinopathy in patients at a public primary care service in southern Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish the utility values of different health states associated with diabetic retinopathy in a Brazilian sample to provide input to model-based economic evaluations. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) who underwent teleophthalmology screening at a primary care service from 2014 to 2016. Five diabetic retinopathy health states were defined: absent, non-sight-threatening, sight-threatening, and bilateral blindness. Utility values were estimated using the Brazilian EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D) tariffs. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Analysis of covariance was performed to adjust the utility values for potential confounders. RESULTS: The study included 206 patients. The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) utility value was 0.765 ± 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.740-0.790). The adjusted mean utility value was 0.748 (95% CI, 0.698-0.798) in patients without diabetic retinopathy, 0.752 (95% CI, 0.679-0.825) in those with non-sight-threatening state, 0.628 (95% CI, 0.521-0.736) in those with sight-threatening state, and 0.355 (95% CI, 0.105-0.606) in those with bilateral blindness. A significant utility decrement was found between patients without diabetic retinopathy and those with a sight-threatening health state (0.748 vs. 0.628, respectively, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that a later diabetic retinopathy health state is associated with a decrement in utility value compared with the absence of retinopathy in patients with T2D. The results may be useful as preliminary input to model-based economic evaluations. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of diabetic retinopathy on health-related quality of life in a sample more representative of the Brazilian population.

Interpretation of trial-based economic evaluations of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions.

BACKGROUND: As resources for healthcare are scarce, decision-makers increasingly rely on economic evaluations when making reimbursement decisions about new health technologies, such as drugs, procedures, devices, and equipment. Economic evaluations compare the costs and effects of two or more interventions. Musculoskeletal disorders have a high prevalence and result in high levels of disability and high costs worldwide. Because physical therapy interventions are usually the first line of treatment for musculoskeletal disorders, economic evaluations of such interventions are becoming increasingly important for stakeholders in the field of physical therapy, including physical therapists, decision-makers, and reseachers. However, economic evaluations are relatively difficult to interpret for the majority of stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To support physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy interpreting trial-based economic evaluations and translating the results of such studies to clinical practice. METHODS: The design, analysis, and interpretation of economic evaluations performed alongside randomized controlled trials are discussed. To further illustrate and explain these concepts, we use a case study assessing the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy compared to standard advice in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations are increasingly being used in healthcare decision-making. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that their design, conduct, and analysis are state-of-the-art and that their interpretation is adequate. This masterclass will help physical therapists, decision-makers, and researchers in the field of physical therapy to critically appraise the quality and results of trial-based economic evaluations and to apply the results of such studies to their own clinical practice and setting.

Cost-effectiveness of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double-layer compared with single-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) from a societal and healthcare perspective. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 32 hospitals in the Netherlands, 2016-2018. PARTICIPANTS: 2292 women ≥18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned (1:1). Exclusion criteria were: inability for counselling, previous uterine surgery, known menstrual disorder, placenta increta or percreta, pregnant with three or more fetuses. 1144 women were assigned to single-layer and 1148 to double-layer closure. We included 1620 women with a menstrual cycle in the main analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Single-layer unlocked uterine closure and double-layer unlocked uterine closure with the second layer imbricating the first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spotting days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and societal costs at 9 months of follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between single-layer versus double-layer closure in mean spotting days (1.44 and 1.39 days; mean difference (md) -0.056, 95% CI -0.374 to 0.263), QALYs (0.663 and 0.658; md -0.005, 95% CI -0.015 to 0.005), total healthcare costs (€744 and €727; md €-17, 95% CI -273 to 143), and total societal costs (€5689 and €5927; md €238, 95% CI -624 to 1108). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay of €0, €10 000 and €20 000/QALY gained was 0.30, 0.27 and 0.25, respectively, (societal perspective), and 0.55, 0.41 and 0.32, respectively, (healthcare perspective). CONCLUSION: Double-layer uterine closure is not cost-effective compared with single-layer uterine closure from both perspectives. If this is confirmed by our long-term reproductive follow-up, we suggest to adjust uterine closure technique guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5480/NL5380.

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone on health-related outcomes in individuals with non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of spinal manipulation combined with myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone, in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with three months follow-up. SETTING: Rehabilitation clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two individuals (between 18 and 50 years of age; CNLBP ≥12 consecutive weeks) were enrolled and randomly allocated to one of two groups: (1) Spinal manipulation and myofascial release - SMMRG; n=36) or (2) Spinal manipulation alone (SMG; n=36). INTERVENTIONS: Combined spinal manipulation (characterized by high velocity/low amplitude thrusts) of the sacroiliac and lumbar spine and myofascial release of lumbar and sacroiliac muscles vs manipulation of the sacroiliac and lumbar spine alone, twice a week, for three weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments were performed at baseline, three weeks post intervention and three months follow-up. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, pressure pain-threshold and dynamic balance. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between SMMRG vs SMG in pain intensity and disability post intervention and at follow-up. We found an overall significant difference between-groups for CNLBP disability (SMG-SMMRG: mean difference of 5.0; 95% confidence interval of difference 9.9; -0.1), though this effect was not clinically important and was not sustained at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that spinal manipulation combined with myofascial release was not more effective compared to spinal manipulation alone for patients with CNLBP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03113292.