Two Days Versus Five Days of Postoperative Antibiotics for Complex Appendicitis: Cost Analysis of a Randomized, Noninferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs for 2 days versus 5 days of postoperative antibiotics within the antibiotics after an aPPendectomy In Complex appendicitis trial.Background:Recent studies suggest that restrictive antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction in hospital stays without compromising patient safety. Its potential effect on societal costs remains underexplored. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, open-label, multicenter clinical trial powered for noninferiority. Patients with complex appendicitis (age ≥ 8 years) were randomly allocated to 2 days or 5 days of intravenous antibiotics after appendectomy. Patient inclusion lasted from June 2017 to June 2021 in 15 Dutch hospitals. The final follow-up was on September 1, 2021. The primary trial endpoint was a composite endpoint of infectious complications and mortality within 90 days. In the present study, the main outcome measures were overall societal costs (comprising direct health care costs and costs related to productivity loss) and cost-effectiveness. Direct health care costs were recorded based on data in the electronic patient files, complemented by a telephone follow-up at 90 days. In addition, data on loss of productivity were acquired through the validated Productivity Cost Questionnaire at 4 weeks after surgery. Cost estimates were based on prices for the year 2019. RESULTS: In total, 1005 patients were evaluated in the "intention-to-treat" analysis: 502 patients were allocated to the 2-day group and 503 to the 5-day group. The mean difference in overall societal costs was - €625 (95% CI: -€ 958 to -€ 278) to the advantage of the 2-day group. This difference was largely explained by reduced hospital stay. Productivity losses were similar between the study groups. Restricting postoperative antibiotics to 2 days was cost-effective, with estimated cost savings of €31,117 per additional infectious complication. CONCLUSIONS: Two days of postoperative antibiotics for complex appendicitis results in a statistically significant and relevant cost reduction, as compared with 5 days. Findings apply to laparoscopic appendectomy in a well-resourced health care setting.

Socioeconomic differences in healthcare expenditure and utilization in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, socioeconomic differences in health and use of healthcare resources have been reported, even in countries providing universal healthcare coverage. However, it is unclear how large these socioeconomic differences are for different types of care and to what extent health status plays a role. Therefore, our aim was to examine to what extent healthcare expenditure and utilization differ according to educational level and income, and whether these differences can be explained by health inequalities. METHODS: Data from 18,936 participants aged 25-79 years of the Dutch Health Interview Survey were linked at the individual level to nationwide claims data that included healthcare expenditure covered in 2017. For healthcare utilization, participants reported use of different types of healthcare in the past 12 months. The association of education/income with healthcare expenditure/utilization was studied separately for different types of healthcare such as GP and hospital care. Subsequently, analyses were adjusted for general health, physical limitations, and mental health. RESULTS: For most types of healthcare, participants with lower educational and income levels had higher healthcare expenditure and used more healthcare compared to participants with the highest educational and income levels. Total healthcare expenditure was approximately between 50 and 150 % higher (depending on age group) among people in the lowest educational and income levels. These differences generally disappeared or decreased after including health covariates in the analyses. After adjustment for health, socioeconomic differences in total healthcare expenditure were reduced by 74-91 %. CONCLUSIONS: In this study among Dutch adults, lower socioeconomic status was associated with increased healthcare expenditure and utilization. These socioeconomic differences largely disappeared after taking into account health status, which implies that, within the universal Dutch healthcare system, resources are being spent where they are most needed. Improving health among lower socioeconomic groups may contribute to decreasing health inequalities and healthcare spending.

Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Telemedicine: A Systematic Review.

Background: Healthcare is responsible for 4% to 10% of carbon emissions worldwide, of which 22% is related to transport. Telemedicine emerged as a potential solution to reduce the footprint, for example, by reducing travel. However, a need to understand which variables to include in carbon footprint estimations in telemedicine limits our understanding of the beneficial impact telemedicine might have on our environment. This paper aims to systematically assess the reported carbon footprint and include variables assessed by the literature, comparing telemedicine with usual care. Methods: The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Medline, Embase and Scopus. A quality assessment was performed using a transparency checklist for carbon footprint calculators. Carbon emissions were evaluated based on four categories, including patient travel, and streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) for assessing included variables relevant to telemedicine. Results: We included 33 articles from 1117 records for analysis. The average transparency score was 38% (range 18%-68%). The median roundtrip travel distance for each patient was 131 km (interquartile range [IQR]: 60.8-351), or 25.6 kgCO2 (IQR: 10.6-105.6) emissions. There is high variance among included variables. Saved emissions are structurally underestimated by not including external factors such as a streamlined LCA. Conclusions: Telemedicine aids in reducing emissions, with travel distance being the most significant contributor. Additionally, we recommend accounting for the LCA since it highlights important nuances. This review furthers the debate on assessing carbon footprint savings due to telemedicine.

A validation of the ICECAP-O in a population of post-hospitalized older people in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Various healthcare and social services may impact not only health, but wellbeing as well. Such effects may be more fully captured by capability-wellbeing instruments than with Health-related Quality of Life (HrQol) instruments. The aim of this study is to validate the ICEpop (Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People) CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) capability wellbeing instrument in a population of post-hospitalized older people admitted to a hospital 3 months earlier. METHODS: 296 post-hospitalized older people in the Netherlands were interviewed 3 months after admission between September 2010 and January 2011. We investigated the convergent validity of the ICECAP-O and overall wellbeing measures (Cantril's ladder and Social Production Function: Instrument for Level of Well-being (SPF-IL)), as well as with various health measures (EQ5D, Katz-15 Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short form (SF-20) social functioning dimension). Additionally, we assessed discriminant validity by comparing several relevant subgroups in our sample (based on age, depression, IADL dependency, living situation, etc.). We also investigated the relationship between overall wellbeing and the ICECAP-O, controlling for HrQol and background characteristics. RESULTS: This study suggests that the ICECAP-O has good convergent validity with wellbeing measures as well as health measures and discriminates between various groups of post-hospitalized older people. Wellbeing measured by both Cantril's ladder and SPF-IL is associated with the ICECAP-O in a multivariate analysis controlling for HRQoL as well. CONCLUSION: The ICECAP-O seems to be a valid instrument of capability-wellbeing in older, post-hospitalized people, showing good convergent validity with health and wellbeing instruments, and is able to discriminate between elderly with various health profiles. The ICECAP-O measure seems to capture both health and wellbeing. Therefore it is a promising instrument for assessing the outcomes of health and social services aimed at older people.

Cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in patients aged under 45 years.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in young patients aged under 45 years with traumatic meniscal tears. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, open-labelled, randomized controlled trial in patients aged 18 to 45 years, with a recent onset, traumatic, MRI-verified, isolated meniscal tear without knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or standardized physical therapy with an optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy after three months of follow-up. We performed a cost-utility analysis on the randomization groups to compare both treatments over a 24-month follow-up period. Cost utility was calculated as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared to physical therapy. Calculations were performed from a healthcare system perspective and a societal perspective. Results: A total of 100 patients were included: 49 were randomized to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and 51 to physical therapy. In the physical therapy group, 21 patients (41%) received delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy during follow-up. Over 24 months, patients in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group had a mean 0.005 QALYs lower quality of life (95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.14). The cost-utility ratio was €-160,000/QALY from the healthcare perspective and €-223,372/QALY from the societal perspective, indicating that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy incurs additional costs without any added health benefit. Conclusion: Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is unlikely to be cost-effective in treating young patients with isolated traumatic meniscal tears compared to physical therapy as a primary health intervention. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy leads to a similar quality of life, but higher costs, compared to physical therapy plus optional delayed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.

Forecasting lifetime and aggregate long-term care spending: accounting for changing disability patterns.

OBJECTIVE: The impact population aging exerts on future levels of long-term care (LTC) spending is an urgent topic in which few studies have accounted for disability trends. We forecast individual lifetime and population aggregate annual LTC spending for the Dutch 55+ population to 2030 accounting for changing disability patterns. METHODS: Three levels of (dis)ability were distinguished: none, mild, and severe. Two-part models were used to estimate LTC spending as a function of age, sex, and disability status. A multistate life table model was used to forecast age-specific prevalence of disability and life expectancy (LE) in each disability state. Finally, 2-part model estimates and multistate projections were combined to obtain forecasts of LTC expenditures. RESULTS: LE is expected to increase, whereas life years in severe disability remain constant, resulting in a relative compression of severe disability. Mild disability life years increase, especially for women. Lifetime homecare spending--mainly determined by mild disability--increases, whereas institutional spending remains fairly constant due to stable LE with severe disability. Lifetime LTC expenditures, largely determined by institutional spending, are thus hardly influenced by increasing LE. Aggregate spending for the 55+ population is expected to rise by 56.0% in the period of 2007-2030. CONCLUSIONS: Longevity gains accompanied by a compression of severe disability will not seriously increase lifetime spending. The growth of the elderly cohort, however, will considerably increase aggregate spending. Stimulating a compression of disability is among the main solutions to alleviate the consequences of longevity gains and population aging to growth of LTC spending.

Capabilities and quality of life in Dutch psycho-geriatric nursing homes: an exploratory study using a proxy version of the ICECAP-O.

PURPOSE: To validate the ICECAP-O capability measure in psycho-geriatric elderly in nursing homes, we compared the capability scores of restrained and unrestrained clients. Both nursing staff and family were used as proxies for assessing clients' capabilities. METHOD: For 122 psycho-geriatric elderly, a total of 96 nursing professionals and 68 family members completed a proxy questionnaire. We investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of the ICECAP-O and measures of care dependency, health-related quality of life, and overall quality of life. We also directly compared ICECAP-O scores of the 56 clients for whom both nursing staff and family members had completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: Convergent validity between ICECAP-O and care dependency, health-related, and overall quality of life measures could be established, as well as discriminant validity for the restrained and unrestrained groups. Nursing and family proxy ICECAP-O tariffs were not significantly correlated. DISCUSSION: ICECAP-O measures a more general concept than health-related quality of life and can differentiate between restrained and non-restrained psycho-geriatric clients. Since nurses seem to be able to assess the current quality of life of clients using the ICECAP-O more precisely than the family proxies, for now the use of nursing proxies is recommended in a nursing home setting.

No Added Value of Duloxetine in Patients With Chronic Pain due to Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost-effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0-20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data. RESULTS: In total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference -0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference -0.26 [95% CI -1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference -0.32 [95% CI -2.32, 1.67]). CONCLUSION: We found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results.

The importance of job control for workers with decreased work ability to remain productive at work.

PURPOSE: Workers with decreased work ability are at greater risk of reduced productivity at work. We hypothesized that work-related characteristics play an important role in supporting workers to remain productive despite decreased work ability. METHODS: The study population consisted of 10,542 workers in 49 different companies in the Netherlands in 2005-2009. Productivity loss at work was defined on a 10-point scale by asking how much work was actually performed during regular hours on the last regular workday when compared with normal. Independent variables in the logistic regression analysis were individual characteristics, work-related factors, and the work ability index. Additive interactions between work-related factors and decreased work ability were evaluated by the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). RESULTS: The odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the likelihood of productivity loss at work were 2.03 (1.85-2.22), 3.50 (3.10-3.95), and 5.54 (4.37-7.03) for a good, moderate, and poor work ability, compared with an excellent work ability (reference group). Productivity loss at work was associated with lack of job control, poor skill discretion, and high work demands. There was a significant interaction between decreased work ability and lack of job control (RERI = 0.63 95% CI 0.11-1.16) with productivity loss at work. CONCLUSION: The negative effects on work performance of decreased work ability may be partly counterbalanced by increased job control. This suggests that interventions among workers with (chronic) disease that cause a decreased work ability should include enlargement of possibilities to plan and pace their own activities at work.

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease, causing pain and functional impairments. According to international guidelines, exercise therapy has a short-term effect in reducing pain/functional impairments in knee OA and is therefore also generally recommended for hip OA. Because of its high prevalence and clinical implications, OA is associated with considerable (healthcare) costs. However, studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of common exercise therapy in hip OA are lacking. Therefore, this randomised controlled trial is designed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in conjunction with the general practitioner's (GP) care, compared to GP care alone, for patients with hip OA. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients aged ≥ 45 years with OA of the hip, who consulted the GP during the past year for hip complaints and who comply with the American College of Rheumatology criteria, are included. Patients are randomly assigned to either exercise therapy in addition to GP care, or to GP care alone. Exercise therapy consists of (maximally) 12 treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, and home exercises. These are followed by three additional treatment sessions in the 5th, 7th and 9th month after the first treatment session. GP care consists of usual care for hip OA, such as general advice or prescribing pain medication. Primary outcomes are hip pain and hip-related activity limitations (measured with the Hip disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS]), direct costs, and productivity costs (measured with the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire). These parameters are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. To detect a 25% clinical difference in the HOOS pain score, with a power of 80% and an alpha 5%, 210 patients are required. Data are analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Effectiveness is evaluated using linear regression models with repeated measurements. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and an incremental cost-utility analysis will also be performed. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of adding exercise therapy to GPs' care in the treatment of OA of the hip. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry http://www.trialregister.nl: trial number NTR1462.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection versus exercise therapy for shoulder pain in general practice: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SIX Study).

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is common and the prognosis is often unfavourable. Dutch guidelines on the treatment of shoulder pain in primary care recommend a corticosteroid injection or a referral to exercise therapy, if initial pain management fails and pain persists. However, evidence of the effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with exercise therapy, especially in the long term, is limited. This trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with physiotherapist-led exercise therapy over 12 months follow-up in patients with shoulder pain in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SIX Study is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised clinical trial in primary care. A total of 213 patients with shoulder pain, aged ≥18 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients will be randomised (1:1) into two groups: a corticosteroid injection or 12 sessions of physiotherapist-led exercise therapy. The effect of the allocated treatment will be assessed through questionnaires at 6 weeks and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome is patient's reported shoulder pain-intensity and function, measured with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, over 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost effectiveness, pain-intensity, function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, patient's global perceived effect, work absence, healthcare utilisation and adverse events. Between group differences will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. A cost-utility analysis will be performed to assess the cost effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years from a medical and societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (MEC 2020-0300). All participants will give written informed consent prior to data collection. The results from this study will be disseminated in international journals and implemented in the primary care guidelines on shoulder pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Registry (NL8854).

Lifetime health effects and medical costs of integrated stroke services - a non-randomized controlled cluster-trial based life table approach.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of stroke services indicates that such services may lead to improved quality of life at affordable cost. The present study assesses lifetime health impact and cost consequences of stroke in an integrated service setting. METHODS: The EDISSE study is a prospective non-randomized controlled cluster trial that compared stroke services (n = 151 patients) to usual care (n = 187 patients). Health status and cost trial-data were entered in multi-dimensional stroke life-tables. The tables distinguish four levels of disability which are defined by the modified Rankin scale. Quality-of-life scores (EuroQoL-5D), transition and survival probabilities are based on concurrent Dutch follow-up studies. Outcomes are quality-adjusted life years lived and lifetime medical cost by disability category. An economic analysis compares outcomes from a successful stroke service to usual care, by bootstrapping individual costs and effects data from patients in each arm. RESULTS: Lifetime costs and QALYs after stroke depend on age-of-onset of first-ever stroke. Lifetime QALYs after stroke are 2.42 (90% CI - 0.49 - 2.75) for male patients in usual care and 2.75 (-0.61; 6.26) for females. Lifetime costs for men in the usual care setting are €39,335 (15,951; 79,837) and €42,944 (14,081; 95,944) for women. A comparison with the stroke service results in an ICER of €11,685 saved per QALY gained (€14,211 and €7,745 for men and women respectively). This stroke service is with 90% certainty cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows the potential of large health benefits and cost savings of stroke services, taking a lifetime perspective, also in other European settings.

The effects of timing on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for workers on sick leave due to low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of different timing of structured interventions for workers on sick leave due to low back pain on return to work (RTW), and the consequences for costs and benefits. METHODS: Literature reviews were conducted to identify RTW curves and to estimate treatment effects, costs and benefits of structured interventions among workers on sick leave due to low back pain. RTW curves were mathematically described by Weibull functions and intervention effects, expressed by hazard ratios, were used to adjust these Weibull functions. Subsequently, these functions were used to evaluate the theoretical effects of interventions on reduction in number of days on sick leave and on the benefit-cost ratio. RESULTS: The cost-benefits of a RTW intervention among workers on sick leave due to low back pain were determined by the estimated effectiveness of the intervention, the costs of the intervention, the natural course of RTW in the target population, the timing of the enrolment of subjects into the intervention, and the duration of the intervention. CONCLUSION: With a good RTW in the first weeks, the only early interventions likely to be cost-beneficial are inexpensive work-focused enhancements to early routine care, such as accommodating workplaces. Structured interventions are unlikely to have an additional impact on the already good prognosis when offered before the optimal time window at approximately 8 to 12 weeks. The generalisibility of the effectiveness of a RTW intervention depends on the comparability of baseline characteristics and RTW curves in target and source populations.

Cost-effectiveness of monitoring glaucoma patients in shared care: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Population aging increases the number of glaucoma patients which leads to higher workloads of glaucoma specialists. If stable glaucoma patients were monitored by optometrists and ophthalmic technicians in a glaucoma follow-up unit (GFU) rather than by glaucoma specialists, the specialists' workload and waiting lists might be reduced.We compared costs and quality of care at the GFU with those of usual care by glaucoma specialists in the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH) in a 30-month randomized clinical trial. Because quality of care turned out to be similar, we focus here on the costs. METHODS: Stable glaucoma patients were randomized between the GFU and the glaucoma specialist group. Costs per patient year were calculated from four perspectives: those of patients, the Rotterdam Eye Hospital (REH), Dutch healthcare system, and society. The outcome measures were: compliance to the protocol; patient satisfaction; stability according to the practitioner; mean difference in IOP; results of the examinations; and number of treatment changes. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics (such as age, intraocular pressure and target pressure) were comparable between the GFU group (n = 410) and the glaucoma specialist group (n = 405).Despite a higher number of visits per year, mean hospital costs per patient year were lower in the GFU group (€139 vs. €161). Patients' time and travel costs were similar. Healthcare costs were significantly lower for the GFU group (€230 vs. €251), as were societal costs (€310 vs. €339) (p < 0.01). Bootstrap-, sensitivity- and scenario-analyses showed that the costs were robust when varying hospital policy and the duration of visits and tests. CONCLUSION: We conclude that this GFU is cost-effective and deserves to be considered for implementation in other hospitals.

Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to get insight in what criteria as presented in Health technology assessment (HTA) studies are important for decision makers in healthcare priority setting. METHODS: We performed a discrete choice experiment among Dutch healthcare professionals (policy makers, HTA experts, advanced HTA students). In twenty-seven choice sets, we asked respondents to elect reimbursement of one of two different healthcare interventions, which represented unlabeled, curative treatments. Both treatments were incrementally compared with usual care. The results of the interventions were normal outputs of HTA studies with a societal perspective. Results were analyzed using a multinomial logistic regression model. Upon completion of the questionnaire, we discussed the exercise with policy makers. RESULTS: Severity of disease, costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained, individual health gain, and the budget impact were the most decisive decision criteria. A program targeting more severe diseases increased the probability of reimbursement dramatically. Uncertainty related to cost-effectiveness was also important. Respondents preferred health gains that include quality of life improvements over extension of life without improved quality of life. Savings in productivity costs were not crucial in decision making, although these are to be included in Dutch reimbursement dossiers for new drugs. Regarding subgroups, we found that policy makers attached relatively more weight to disease severity than others but less to uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch policy makers and other healthcare professionals seem to have reasonably well articulated preferences: six of seven attributes were significant. Disease severity, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness were very important. The results are comparable to international studies, but reveal a larger set of important decision criteria.

Clinically SUspected ScaPhoid fracturE: treatment with supportive bandage or CasT? 'Study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial' (SUSPECT study).

INTRODUCTION: Some scaphoid fractures become visible on radiographs weeks after a trauma which makes normal radiographs directly after trauma unreliable. Untreated scaphoid fractures can lead to scaphoid non-union progressing to osteoarthritis. Therefore, the general treatment for patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture and normal initial radiographs is immobilisation with below-elbow cast for 2 weeks. However, most of these patients are treated unnecessarily because eventually less than 10% of them are diagnosed with an occult scaphoid fracture. To reduce overtreatment and costs as a result of unnecessary cast treatment in patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture and normal initial radiographs, we designed a study to compare below-elbow cast treatment with supportive bandage treatment. We hypothesise that the functional outcome after 3 months is not inferior in patients treated with supportive bandage compared to patients treated with below-elbow cast, but with lower costs in the supportive bandage group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SUSPECT study is an open-labelled multicentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design. A total of 180 adult patients with a clinically suspected scaphoid fracture and normal initial radiographs are randomised between two groups: 3 days of supportive bandage or 2 weeks of below-elbow cast. We aim to evaluate the functional outcome and cost-effectiveness of both treatments. The primary outcome is the functional outcome after 3 months, assessed with the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. Secondary outcomes include functional outcome, recovery of function, pain, patient satisfaction, quality of life and cost-effectiveness measured by medical consumption, absence from work or decreased productivity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC Medical Centre, Rotterdam, approved the study protocol (MEC-2017-504). We plan to present the results after completion of the study at (inter)national conferences and publish in general peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL6976.

The role of disability in explaining long-term care utilization.

OBJECTIVE: In view of aging populations, it is important to improve our understanding of the determination of long-term care (LTC) service use among the middle-aged and elderly population. We examined the likelihood of using 2 levels of LTC-homecare and institutional care-in the Netherlands and focused on the influence of the measured degree of disability. METHODS: We pooled 2 cross-sectional surveys-one that excluded institutionalized and one that was targeted at institutionalized individuals aged 50+. Disability is measured by impairment in (instrumental) activities of daily living (iADL, ADL) and mobility. Consistency with official Dutch LTC eligibility criteria resulted in the selection of an ordered response model to analyze utilization. We compared a model with separate disability indicators to one with a disability index. RESULTS: Age and disability, but not general health, proved to be the main determinants of utilization, with the composite index sufficiently representing the disaggregated components. The presence of at least 1 disability displayed a greater effect on utilization than any additional disabilities. Apart from disability and age, sex, living alone, psychologic problems, and hospitalizations showed a significant influence on LTC use. Some determinants affected the likelihood of homecare or institutional care use differently. CONCLUSIONS: Even after extensive control for disability, age remains an important driver of LTC use. By contrast, general health status hardly affects LTC use. The model and disability index can be used as a policy tool for simulating LTC needs.

An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare.

This paper compares several applied valuation methods for including informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes: the proxy good method; the opportunity cost method; the contingent valuation method (CVM); conjoint measurement (CM); and valuation of health effects in terms of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and well-being. The comparison focuses on three questions: what outcome measures are available for including informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare programmes; whether these measures are compatible with the common types of economic evaluation; and, when applying these measures, whether all relevant aspects of informal care are incorporated. All types of economic evaluation can incorporate a monetary value of informal care (using the opportunity cost method, the proxy good method, CVM and CM) on the cost side of an analysis, but only when the relevant aspects of time costs have been valued. On the effect side of a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis, the health effects (for the patient and/or caregiver) measured in natural units or QALYs can be combined with cost estimates based on the opportunity cost method or the proxy good method. One should be careful when incorporating CVM and CM in cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, as the health effects of patients receiving informal care and the carers themselves may also have been valued separately. One should determine whether the caregiver valuation exercise allows combination with other valuation techniques. In cost-benefit analyses, CVM and CM appear to be the best tools for the valuation of informal care. When researchers decide to use the well-being method, we recommend applying it in a cost-benefit analysis framework. This method values overall QOL (happiness); hence it is broader than just HR-QOL, which complicates inclusion in traditional health economic evaluations that normally define outcomes more narrowly. Using broader, non-monetary valuation techniques, such as the CarerQol instrument, requires a broader evaluation framework than cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis, such as cost-consequence or multi-criteria analysis.

The costs of disease related malnutrition in hospitalized children.

INTRODUCTION: Disease related malnutrition (DRM) is a serious medical condition which is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality, augmenting resource use and associated costs. DRM can be detected by actively and fully assessing the nutritional status. Studies in adult malnourished patients have shown that the additional health care costs are about € 2 billion (€ 2000 million) per year. The objective of the current study was to estimate the annual additional costs of DRM for pediatric patients as was done for adults. METHODS: A cost-of-illness analysis was performed to calculate the annual additional costs of DRM in 2015 pediatric patients (aged 1 month up to and including 17 years) admitted to non-academic hospitals in The Netherlands. DRM was assessed with weight-for-age, weight-for-height and height-for-age. Input variables in the formula used were length of stay and prevalence of DRM. The costs were estimated per disease as classified in the International Classification of Diseases by the WHO (ICD-10), per gender and age group. The results were expressed as an absolute monetary value as well as a percentage of the Dutch national health expenditure. Robustness of the results was checked by a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The total additional direct medical costs of DRM in pediatric patients in 2013 were estimated to be € 51 million for acute malnutrition, € 46 million when focused on chronic malnutrition and € 80 million in case of overall malnourished children. This equals 5.6% of the total Dutch hospital costs for these hospitalized children. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that DRM in hospitalized children is associated with an increase in annual hospital costs with an additional amount of € 80 million, of which acute malnutrition account for the largest part.

Cost-Utility Analysis of High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis in Everyday Clinical Care in Patients at a Working Age: An Economic Evaluation of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with high medical costs and especially with high productivity costs, in particular in patients in their working years. High molecular weight (HMW) hyaluronic acid (HA) is an alternative treatment for nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, which are known for their serious side-effects. The cost-utility of intraarticular HMW-HA treatment in these patients is unknown, however, and was assessed in this study. METHODS: Secondary care patients ages 18-65 years with knee OA were randomized to usual care plus HMW-HA (intervention group) or to usual care only (control group). A cost-utility analysis over 52 weeks from the societal and health care perspective was performed. Uncertainty for costs, effects, and cost-utility ratio was analyzed by nonparametric bootstrapping. Baseline imbalance adjustment was done by inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: In total, 156 subjects were included (intervention group n = 77, control group n = 79). The total of productivity and medical costs was €475 higher in the intervention group at €7,754 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5,426, 10,436) versus €7,270 (95% CI 5,453, 9,262). The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained during followup was also higher in the intervention group (0.779 versus 0.727). This variation resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9,100/QALY from a societal perspective and €8,700/QALY from a health care perspective. When the maximum willingness to pay for conditions similar to knee OA is considered, the probability on cost-effectiveness is 64% and 86%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intraarticular HMW-HA added to usual care for knee OA is probably cost-effective in the treatment of knee OA.