Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service. RESULTS: PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.

Beyond 10-Year Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol guidelines typically prioritize primary prevention statin therapy on the basis of 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. The advent of generic pricing may justify expansion of statin eligibility. Moreover, 10-year risk may not be the optimal approach for statin prioritization. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin eligibility and evaluated novel approaches to prioritization from a Scottish health sector perspective. METHODS: A computer simulation model predicted long-term health and cost outcomes in Scottish adults ≥40 years of age. Epidemiologic analysis was completed using the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort, Scottish Morbidity Records, and National Records of Scotland. A simulation cohort was constructed with data from the Scottish Health Survey 2011 and contemporary population estimates. Treatment and cost inputs were derived from published literature and health service cost data. The main outcome measure was the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, evaluated as cost (2020 GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Three approaches to statin prioritization were analyzed: 10-year risk scoring using the ASSIGN score, age-stratified risk thresholds to increase treatment rates in younger individuals, and absolute risk reduction (ARR)-guided therapy to increase treatment rates in individuals with elevated cholesterol levels. For each approach, 2 policies were considered: treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥20% (age-stratified risk threshold 20, ARR 20) and treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥10% (age-stratified risk threshold 10, ARR 10). RESULTS: Compared with an ASSIGN score ≥20%, reducing the risk threshold for statin initiation to 10% expanded eligibility from 804 000 (32% of adults ≥40 years of age without CVD) to 1 445 500 individuals (58%). This policy would be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £12 300/QALY [95% CI, £7690/QALY-£26 500/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥20%, ARR 20 produced ≈8800 QALYs and was cost-effective (£7050/QALY [95% CI, £4560/QALY-£10 700/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥10%, ARR 10 produced ≈7950 QALYs and was cost-effective (£11 700/QALY [95% CI, £9250/QALY-£16 900/QALY]). Both age-stratified risk threshold strategies were dominated (ie, more expensive and less effective than alternative treatment strategies). CONCLUSIONS: Generic pricing has rendered preventive statin therapy cost-effective for many adults. ARR-guided therapy is more effective than 10-year risk scoring and is cost-effective.

Implementation of a national smoke-free prison policy: an economic evaluation within the Tobacco in Prisons (TIPs) study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of a smoke-free prison policy in Scotland, through assessments of the trade-offs between costs (healthcare and non-healthcare-related expenditure) and outcomes (health and non-health-related non-monetary consequences) of implementing the policy. DESIGN: A health economic evaluation consisting of three analyses (cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility), from the perspectives of the healthcare payer, prison service, people in custody and operational staff, assessed the trade-offs between costs and outcomes. Costs associated with the implementation of the policy, healthcare resource use and personal spend on nicotine products were considered, alongside health and non-health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of the policy was evaluated over 12-month and lifetime horizons (short term and long term). SETTING: Scotland's national prison estate. PARTICIPANTS: People in custody and operational prison staff. INTERVENTION: Implementation of a comprehensive (indoor and outdoor) smoke-free policy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Concentration of secondhand smoke, health-related quality of life (health utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)) and various non-health outcomes (eg, incidents of assaults and fires). RESULTS: The short-term analyses suggest cost savings for people in custody and staff, improvements in concentration of secondhand smoke, with no consistent direction of change across other outcomes. The long-term analysis demonstrated that implementing smoke-free policy was cost-effective over a lifetime for people in custody and staff, with approximate cost savings of £28 000 and £450, respectively, and improvement in health-related quality of life of 0.971 QALYs and 0.262, respectively. CONCLUSION: Implementing a smoke-free prison policy is cost-effective over the short term and long term for people in custody and staff.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model of preterm birth for women with preterm labour symptoms (the QUIDS study): A prospective cohort study and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely interventions in women presenting with preterm labour can substantially improve health outcomes for preterm babies. However, establishing such a diagnosis is very challenging, as signs and symptoms of preterm labour are common and can be nonspecific. We aimed to develop and externally validate a risk prediction model using concentration of vaginal fluid fetal fibronectin (quantitative fFN), in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and assessed its cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Pregnant women included in the analyses were 22+0 to 34+6 weeks gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour. The primary outcome was spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of quantitative fFN test. The risk prediction model was developed and internally validated in an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of 5 European prospective cohort studies (2009 to 2016; 1,783 women; mean age 29.7 years; median BMI 24.8 kg/m2; 67.6% White; 11.7% smokers; 51.8% nulliparous; 10.4% with multiple pregnancy; 139 [7.8%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The model was then externally validated in a prospective cohort study in 26 United Kingdom centres (2016 to 2018; 2,924 women; mean age 28.2 years; median BMI 25.4 kg/m2; 88.2% White; 21% smokers; 35.2% nulliparous; 3.5% with multiple pregnancy; 85 [2.9%] with spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days). The developed risk prediction model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days included quantitative fFN, current smoking, not White ethnicity, nulliparity, and multiple pregnancy. After internal validation, the optimism adjusted area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.92), and the optimism adjusted Nagelkerke R2 was 35% (95% CI 33% to 37%). On external validation in the prospective UK cohort population, the area under the curve was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.94), and Nagelkerke R2 of 36% (95% CI: 34% to 38%). Recalibration of the model's intercept was required to ensure overall calibration-in-the-large. A calibration curve suggested close agreement between predicted and observed risks in the range of predictions 0% to 10%, but some miscalibration (underprediction) at higher risks (slope 1.24 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.26)). Despite any miscalibration, the net benefit of the model was higher than "treat all" or "treat none" strategies for thresholds up to about 15% risk. The economic analysis found the prognostic model was cost effective, compared to using qualitative fFN, at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days. Study limitations include the limited number of participants who are not White and levels of missing data for certain variables in the development dataset. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that a risk prediction model including vaginal fFN concentration and clinical risk factors showed promising performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test and has potential to inform management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour. Further evaluation of the risk prediction model in clinical practice is required to determine whether the risk prediction model improves clinical outcomes if used in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (16/WS/0068). The study was registered with ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN 41598423) and NIHR Portfolio (CPMS: 31277).

Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing has potential roles in identifying whether an individual would have risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from a particular medicine. Robust cost-effectiveness results on genetic testing would be useful for clinical practice and policy decision-making on allocating resources effectively. This study aimed to update a systematic review on economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to prevent ADRs and critically appraise the quality of reporting and sources of evidence for model input parameters. METHODS: We searched studies through Medline via PubMed, Scopus and CRD's NHS Economic Evaluation up to October 2019. Studies investigating polymorphism-based pharmacogenetic testing, which guided drug therapies to prevent ADRs, using economic evaluation methods were included. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and assessed the quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines and the quality of data sources using the hierarchy of evidence developed by Cooper et al. RESULTS: Fifty-nine economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to avoid drug-induced ADRs were found between 2002 and 2018. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses were the most common methods of economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing. Most studies complied with the CHEERS checklist, except for single study-based economic evaluations which did not report uncertainty analysis (78%). There was a lack of high-quality evidence not only for estimating the clinical effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, but also baseline clinical data. About 14% of the studies obtained clinical effectiveness data of testing from a meta-analysis of case-control studies with direct comparison, which was not listed in the hierarchy of evidence used. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggested that future single study-based economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing should report uncertainty analysis, as this could significantly affect the robustness of economic evaluation results. A specific ranking system for the quality of evidence is needed for the economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing of ADRs. Differences in parameters, methods and outcomes across studies, as well as population-level and system-level differences, may lead to the difficulty of comparing cost-effectiveness results across countries.

How has implementation been incorporated in health technology assessments in the United Kingdom? A systematic rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: Health interventions in a clinical setting may be complex. This is particularly true of clinical interventions which require systems reorganization or behavioural change, and/or when implementation involves additional challenges not captured within a clinical trial setting. Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions highlights the need to consider economic evaluation alongside implementation. However, the extent to which this guidance has been adhered to, and how, is unclear. The failure to incorporate implementation within the evaluation of an intervention may hinder the translation of research findings into routine practice. This will have consequences for patient care. This study examined the methods used to address implementation within health research conducted through funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review using a systematic approach. We included all NIHR HTA monographs which contained the word "implementation" within the title or abstract published between 2014 and 2020. We assessed the studies according to existing recommendations for specifying and reporting implementation approaches in research. Additional themes which were not included in the recommendation, but were of particular relevance to our research question, were also identified and summarized in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The extent to which implementation was formally incorporated, and defined, varied among studies. Methods for examining implementation ranged from single stakeholder engagement events to the more comprehensive process evaluation. There was no obvious pattern as to whether approaches to implementation had evolved over recent years. Approximately 50% (22/42) of studies included an economic evaluation. Of these, two studies included the use of qualitative data obtained within the study to quantitatively inform aspects relating to implementation and economic evaluation in their study. DISCUSSION: A variety of approaches were identified for incorporating implementation within an HTA. However, they did not go far enough in terms of incorporating implementation into the actual design and evaluation. To ensure the implementation of clinically effective and cost-effective interventions, we propose that further guidance on how to incorporate implementation within complex interventions is required. Incorporating implementation into economic evaluation provides a step in this direction.

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: Performing cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews. METHODS: In total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research  impact evaluation going forward. RESULTS: In total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated. CONCLUSIONS: Impact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research  is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

Intelligent liver function testing (iLFT): A trial of automated diagnosis and staging of liver disease in primary care.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver function tests (LFTs) are frequently requested blood tests which may indicate liver disease. LFTs are commonly abnormal, the causes of which can be complex and are frequently under investigated. This can lead to missed opportunities to diagnose and treat liver disease at an early stage. We developed an automated investigation algorithm, intelligent liver function testing (iLFT), with the aim of increasing the early diagnosis of liver disease in a cost-effective manner. METHODS: We developed an automated system that further investigated abnormal LFTs on initial testing samples to generate a probable diagnosis and management plan. We integrated this automated investigation algorithm into the laboratory management system, based on minimal diagnostic criteria, liver fibrosis estimation, and reflex testing for causes of liver disease. This algorithm then generated a diagnosis and/or management plan. A stepped-wedged trial design was utilised to compare LFT outcomes in general practices in the 6 months before and after introduction of the iLFT system. Diagnostic outcomes were collated and compared. RESULTS: Of eligible patients with abnormal LFTs, 490 were recruited to the control group and 64 were recruited to the intervention group. The primary diagnostic outcome was based on the general practitioner diagnosis, which agreed with the iLFT diagnosis in 67% of cases. In the iLFT group, the diagnosis of liver disease was increased by 43%. Additionally, there were significant increases in the rates of GP visits after diagnosis and the number of referrals to secondary care in the iLFT group. iLFT was cost-effective with a low initial incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £284 per correct diagnosis, and a saving to the NHS of £3,216 per patient lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: iLFT increases liver disease diagnoses, improves quality of care, and is highly cost-effective. This can be achieved with minor changes to working practices and exploitation of functionality existing within modern laboratory diagnostics systems. LAY SUMMARY: There is a growing epidemic of advanced liver disease, this could be offset by early detection and management. Checking liver blood tests (LFTs) should be an opportunity to diagnose liver problems, but abnormal results are often incompletely investigated. In this study we were able to substantially increase the diagnostic yield of the abnormal LFTs using the automated intelligent LFT system. With the addition of referral recommendations and management plans, this strategy provides optimum investigation and management of LFTs and is cost saving to the NHS.

3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment. METHODS: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group). INTERPRETATION: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK.

SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. METHODS: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.

Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, totally implantable venous access systems (TIVAS) are not routinely used. Compared with Hickman catheters, these devices are more expensive and complex to insert. However, it is unclear whether the higher costs may be offset by perceived greater health benefits. This pilot trial aimed to generate relevant data to inform the design of a larger definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This was a phase II prospective, randomised, open trial from two UK oncology centres. The primary end point was overall complication rate. Secondary end points included individual complication rates, time to first complication and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. An economic evaluation was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were randomised in a 3 : 1 ratio to receive a Hickman or a TIVAS. Overall, 54% of patients in the Hickman arm suffered one or more complications compared with 38% in the TIVAS arm (one-sided P=0.068). In the Hickman arm, 28% of the devices were removed prematurely due to a complication compared with 4% in the TIVAS arm. Quality of life based on the device-specific questionnaire was greater in the TIVAS arm for 13 of the 16 questions. The economic evaluation showed that Hickman arm was associated with greater mean cost per patient £1803 (95% CI 462, 3215), but similar quality-adjusted life years -0.01 (95% CI -0.15, 0.15) than the TIVAS arm. However, there is much uncertainty associated with the results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Hickman catheters, TIVAS may be the cost-effective option. A larger multicentre trial is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Oxygen saturation targets in infants with bronchiolitis (BIDS): a double-blind, randomised, equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a permissive hypoxaemic target for an oxygen saturation of 90% for children with bronchiolitis, which is consistent with the WHO recommendations for targets in children with lower respiratory tract infections. No evidence exists to support this threshold. We aimed to assess whether the 90% or higher target for management of oxygen supplementation was equivalent to a normoxic 94% or higher target for infants admitted to hospital with viral bronchiolitis. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, randomised, controlled, equivalence trial of infants aged 6 weeks to 12 months of age with physician-diagnosed bronchiolitis newly admitted into eight paediatric hospital units in the UK (the Bronchiolitis of Infancy Discharge Study [BIDS]). A central computer randomly allocated (1:1) infants, in varying length blocks of four and six and without stratification, to be clipped to standard oximeters (patients treated with oxygen if pulse oxygen saturation [SpO2] <94%) or modified oximeters (displayed a measured value of 90% as 94%, therefore oxygen not given until SpO2 <90%). All parents, clinical staff, and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was time to resolution of cough (prespecified equivalence limits of plus or minus 2 days) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN28405428. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, and March 30, 2012, and Oct 1, and March 29, 2013, we randomly assigned 308 infants to standard oximeters and 307 infants to modified oximeters. Cough resolved by 15·0 days (median) in both groups (95% CI for difference -1 to 2) and so oxygen thresholds were equivalent. We recorded 35 serious adverse events in 32 infants in the standard care group and 25 serious adverse events in 24 infants in the modified care group. In the standard care group, eight infants transferred to a high-dependency unit, 23 were readmitted, and one had a prolonged hospital stay. In the modified care group, 12 infants were transferred to a high-dependency unit and 12 were readmitted to hospital. Recorded adverse events did not differ significantly. INTERPRETATION: Management of infants with bronchiolitis to an oxygen saturation target of 90% or higher is as safe and clinically effective as one of 94% or higher. Future research should assess the benefits and risks of different oxygen saturation targets in acute respiratory infection in older children, particularly in developing nations where resources are scarce. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.

Development of a radical foster care intervention in Glasgow, Scotland.

Services for maltreated children are inadequate and lack infant mental health input in many parts of the world. A recent audit of Glasgow services revealed that children frequently 'revolve' between maltreating birth parents and various temporary foster placements for many years. Addressing infant mental health in this population will require radical change to current services. The New Orleans programme developed by the Tulane Infant Team in Louisiana is one such radical programme. Prior to the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test this programme in Glasgow, it was essential that policy-makers had some insight into the local model of service delivery and how a New Orleans model could impact. This article explores the structure and costs of the current Glasgow system and the potential costs and consequence impact of implementing a New Orleans model in Glasgow, using data obtained from the research literature, Glasgow City Council audit data and expert's opinion. A New Orleans-Glasgow model would likely shift resources from social services on to the NHS. The resource intensive nature of this model could increase the cost of an episode in care from £66 300 in the current system to £86 070; however, the probability of repeated episodes in care is likely to fall substantially, making the cost per child fall from £95 500 in the current system to £88 600. This study informed the design of a phase II explorative RCT, identified appropriate outcomes for measurement and areas of uncertainty for further research.

The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Maltreated children have significant and complex problems which clinicians find difficult to diagnose and treat. Previous US pilot work suggests that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) may be effective; however, rigorous evidence from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to establish the feasibility of an RCT of DDP by exploring the ways that DDP is operating across different UK sites and the impacts of current practice on the potential set-up of an RCT. METHODS: Qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups and teleconferences) were used to explore trial feasibility with therapists and service managers from teams implementing both DDP and possible control interventions. Data were analysed thematically and related to various aspects of trial design. RESULTS: DDP was commonly regarded as having a particular congruence with the complexity of maltreatment-associated problems and a common operating model of DDP was evident across sites. A single control therapy was harder to establish, however, and it is likely to be a non-specific and context-dependent intervention/s offered within mainstream Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Because a 'gold standard' Treatment as Usual (TAU) does not currently exist, randomisation between DDP and TAU (CAMHS) therefore looks feasible and ethical. The nature of family change during DDP was regarded as multi-faceted, non-linear and relationship-based. Assessment tools need to be carefully considered in terms of their ability to capture change that covers both individual child and family-based functioning. CONCLUSIONS: An RCT of DDP is feasible and timely. This study has demonstrated widespread interest, support and engagement regarding an RCT and permissions have been gained from sites that have shown readiness to participate. As maltreated children are among the most vulnerable in society, and as there are currently no treatments with RCT evidence, such a trial would be a major advance in the field.

Examining the feasibility of an economic analysis of dyadic developmental psychotherapy for children with maltreatment associated psychiatric problems in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Children with maltreatment associated psychiatric problems are at increased risk of developing behavioural or mental health disorders. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) was proposed as treatment for children with maltreatment histories in the USA, however, being new to the UK little is known of its effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. As part of an exploratory study, this paper explores the feasibility of undertaking economic analysis of DDP in the UK. METHODS: Feasibility for economic analysis was determined by ensuring such analysis could meet key criteria for economic evaluation. Phone interviews were conducted with professionals (therapists trained and accredited or in the process of becoming accredited DDP practitioners). Three models were developed to represent alternative methods of DDP service delivery. Once appropriate comparators were determined, economic scenarios were constructed. Cost analyses were undertaken from a societal perspective. Finally, appropriate outcome measurement was explored through clinical opinion, literature and further discussions with clinical experts. RESULTS: Three DDP models were constructed: DDP Full-Basic, DDP Home-Based and DDP Long-Term. Two potential comparator interventions were identified and defined as Consultation with Carers and Individual Psychotherapy. Costs of intervention completion per case were estimated to be: £6,700 (DDP Full-Basic), £7,100 (Consultations with Carers), £7,200 (DDP Home-Based), £11,400 (Individual Psychotherapy) and £14,500 (DDP Long-Term). None of the models of service delivery were found to currently measure effectiveness consistently. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was deemed an appropriate primary outcome measure, however, it does not cover all disorders DDP intends to treat and the SDQ is not a direct measure of health gain. Inclusion of quality of life measurement is required for comprehensive economic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Economic analysis of DDP in the UK is feasible if vital next steps are taken to measure intervention outcomes consistently, ideally with a quality of life measurement. An economic analysis using the models constructed could determine the potential cost-effectiveness of DDP in the UK and identify the most efficient mode of service delivery.

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance.

The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of antenatal corticosteroids for planned birth in twins (STOPPIT-3): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the STOPPIT-3 study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) prior to planned birth of twins in a multicentre placebo-controlled trial with internal pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will comprise a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in at least 50 UK obstetric units. The target population is 1552 women with a twin pregnancy and a planned birth between 35 and 38+6 weeks' gestation recruited from antenatal clinics. Women will be randomised to Dexamethasone Phosphate (24 mg) or saline administered via two intramuscular injections 24 hours apart, 24-120 hours prior to scheduled birth. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is need for respiratory support within 72 hours of birth. Secondary and safety outcomes will be included. Cognitive and language development at age 2 years will be assessed in a subset of participants using the Parent report of Children's Abilities-Revised questionnaire. We will also determine the cost effectiveness of the treatment with ACS compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: STOPPIT-3 has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research. It has been approved by the West Midlands Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0018). The results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentation and will also be communicated to the public via links with charity partners and social media. TRIAL SPONSOR: The University of Edinburgh and Lothian Health Board ACCORD, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4TJ. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN59959611.

Almanac - Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Clinical Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive zero-shot capabilities, whereby they can use auxiliary data, without the availability of task-specific training examples, to complete a variety of natural language tasks, such as summarization, dialogue generation, and question answering. However, despite many promising applications of LLMs in clinical medicine, adoption of these models has been limited by their tendency to generate incorrect and sometimes even harmful statements. METHODS: We tasked a panel of eight board-certified clinicians and two health care practitioners with evaluating Almanac, an LLM framework augmented with retrieval capabilities from curated medical resources for medical guideline and treatment recommendations. The panel compared responses from Almanac and standard LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard) versus a novel data set of 314 clinical questions spanning nine medical specialties. RESULTS: Almanac showed a significant improvement in performance compared with the standard LLMs across axes of factuality, completeness, user preference, and adversarial safety. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show the potential for LLMs with access to domain-specific corpora to be effective in clinical decision-making. The findings also underscore the importance of carefully testing LLMs before deployment to mitigate their shortcomings. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Time From Colorectal Cancer Surgery to Adjuvant Chemotherapy: Post Hoc Analysis of the SCOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for colorectal cancer and its association with long-term outcomes have been investigated in national cohort studies, with no consensus on the optimal time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To analyze the association between the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for colorectal cancer and disease-free survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SCOT randomized clinical trial, from 244 centers in 6 countries, investigating the noninferiority of 3 vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with high-risk stage II or stage III nonmetastatic colorectal cancer who underwent curative-intended surgery were randomized to either 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin regimens. Those with complete information on the date of surgery, treatment type, and long-term follow-up were investigated for the primary and secondary end points. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to February 2024. Intervention: In the post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to the start of adjuvant chemotherapy being less than 6 weeks vs greater than 6 weeks after surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival. The secondary end points were adverse events in the total treatment period or the first cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: A total of 5719 patients (2251 [39.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 63.4 [9.3] years) were included in the primary analysis after data curation; among them, 914 were in the early-start group and 4805 were in the late-start group. Median (IQR) follow-up was 72.0 (47.3-88.1) months, with a median (IQR) of 56 (41-66) days from surgery to chemotherapy. Five-year disease-free survival was 78.0% (95% CI, 75.3%-80.8%) in the early-start group and 73.2% (95% CI, 72.0%-74.5%) in the late-start group. In an adjusted Cox regression analysis, the start of adjuvant chemotherapy greater than 6 weeks after surgery was associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; P = .01). In adjusted logistic regression models, there was no association with adverse events in the total treatment period (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04; P = .09) or adverse events in the first cycle of treatment (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09; P = .13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this international population of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer, starting adjuvant chemotherapy more than 6 weeks after surgery was associated with worse disease-free survival, with no difference in adverse events between the groups. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN59757862.

A feasibility randomised controlled trial of the New Orleans intervention for infant mental health: a study protocol.

Child maltreatment is associated with life-long social, physical, and mental health problems. Intervening early to provide maltreated children with safe, nurturing care can improve outcomes. The need for prompt decisions about permanent placement (i.e., regarding adoption or return home) is internationally recognised. However, a recent Glasgow audit showed that many maltreated children "revolve" between birth families and foster carers. This paper describes the protocol of the first exploratory randomised controlled trial of a mental health intervention aimed at improving placement permanency decisions for maltreated children. This trial compares an infant's mental health intervention with the new enhanced service as usual for maltreated children entering care in Glasgow. As both are new services, the trial is being conducted from a position of equipoise. The outcome assessment covers various fields of a child's neurodevelopment to identify problems in any ESSENCE domain. The feasibility, reliability, and developmental appropriateness of all outcome measures are examined. Additionally, the potential for linkage with routinely collected data on health and social care and, in the future, education is explored. The results will inform a definitive randomised controlled trial that could potentially lead to long lasting benefits for the Scottish population and which may be applicable to other areas of the world. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NC01485510).