RESUMEN
AIM: Women with GDM display adverse lifetime cardio-metabolic health. We examined whether early metformin in GDM could impact cardio-metabolic risk factors postpartum. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS: EMERGE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized pregnancies 1:1 to placebo or metformin at GDM diagnosis and followed participants from randomization until 12±4 weeks postpartum. In total 478 pregnancies were available for postpartum maternal assessment, 237 and 241 assigned to metformin and placebo respectively. Weight (kg), body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2), waist circumference (cm) and blood pressure (mmHg) were measured, infant feeding method documented and bloods drawn for a 75 gram oral glucose tolerance test, fasting insulin, C peptide and lipid analysis. RESULTS: Despite similar weight and BMI at trial randomization, participants receiving metformin had significantly lower weight (79.5±15.9 vs 82.6±16.9kg; p=0.04) and BMI (29.3(5.6) vs 30.5(5.4); p=0.018) at the postpartum visit. However no difference in weight change from randomisation to 12 weeks postpartum was observed between metformin and placebo groups. Overall 29% (n=139) of the cohort met criteria for prediabetes or diabetes, with no positive impact with metformin. There were also no differences in measurements of insulin resistance, blood pressure or lipids between groups. CONCLUSION: Early metformin use in GDM did not impact important cardio-metabolic parameters in the early postpartum period despite significant benefits in weight gain and insulin use in pregnancy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can mitigate the burden of health care worker (HCW) infection. We investigate the burden of HCW illness and its associated direct health care personnel costs in the setting of widespread vaccine availability and explore factors influencing these outcomes. METHODS: This multicenter prospective study followed HCWs over an 8-month period from January to August 2023. Data recorded included incident COVID-19 infection, symptom burden, workdays missed, and vaccine history. Workdays lost due to illness were used to calculate direct health care personnel costs due to COVID-19 infection. Univariate analysis and multivariable regression investigated the factors associated with workdays lost and direct health care personnel. RESULTS: In total, 1218 participants were enrolled and followed for 8 months, with 266 incidents of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 1191 workdays lost, and health care personnel costs of 397 974. Multivariable regression revealed that workdays lost were associated with incomplete primary COVID-19 vaccination course. Being unvaccinated, older age, and male were associated with increased health care personnel costs. CONCLUSIONS: Health care workdays lost remain a significant issue and are associated with health care system burden despite vaccine availability. These can be mitigated via targeted implementation of vaccine programs. Seasonal variation in health care workdays lost should inform workforce planning to accommodate surge periods.
RESUMEN
Background: Move for Life (MFL) is a theory-informed intervention that was developed to augment established physical activity (PA) programmes and enable inactive adults aged 50 years and older to be more active. This study examined the feasibility of MFL and sought to provide evidence of its potential for improving PA and associated health outcomes. Methods: A 3-arm cluster randomised feasibility trial compared MFL intervention, usual provision (UP) and control (CON) groups at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1, at 8, 10 or 12- weeks) and 6-month follow up (T2). We used purposive sampling strategies to recruit participants according to characteristics of interest. Feasibility outcomes assessed recruitment, fidelity, adherence, retention and data completion rates based on pre-set criteria. Primary outcomes were accelerometer-based moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) and self-reported compliance with physical activity guidelines (PAGL). Secondary outcomes included light intensity PA (LiPA), standing time, sedentary time, body composition (adiposity), physical function and psychological well-being. We used linear mixed models (continuous outcomes) or generalized estimated equations (categorical outcomes) to estimate group differences over time in the study outcomes. Results: Progression criteria for feasibility outcomes were met, and 733 individuals were recruited. Considering a 6-month period (T0-T2), while self-reported compliance with PAGL increased in MFL relative to UP and CON and in UP relative to CON, standing time decreased in MFL relative to CON and sedentary time increased in the latter compared to UP. Waist circumference decreased in MFL relative to UP and CON. MFL outperformed UP in the Timed Up and Go Test while MFL and UP increased the distance covered in the Six-Minute Walk Test compared to CON. Psychological well-being increased in MFL relative to CON (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Findings show that MFL is feasible, while data are promising with regards to the potential of improving community PA programmes for adults aged 50 or more years. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/Registration#ISRCTN11235176.
Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico , Estudios de Factibilidad , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Promoción de la Salud/métodos , Conducta Sedentaria , AcelerometríaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.
Asunto(s)
Partería , Muerte Perinatal , Nacimiento Prematuro , Lactante , Embarazo , Recién Nacido , Femenino , Humanos , Cesárea , Peso al Nacer , Nacimiento Prematuro/epidemiología , Continuidad de la Atención al Paciente , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
Oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs) are being used increasingly within cancer care. OAMs offer the potential to improve patient convenience and increase hospital capacity. The clinical assessment for each cycle of OAMs requires specialist patient review often performed in hospital-based oncology units. Consequently, any potential improvement in patient expediency or increased hospital capacity that OAMs can offer is not realised. This study aimed to develop and pilot the specialist assessment of patients receiving OAMs by an Advanced Nurse Practitioner (ANP) in a community-based location.The primary aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of a community-based ANP-led integrated oncology care model for adults receiving OAMs in Ireland who met the pre-specified eligibility criteria. The objectives were to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial of this intervention by measuring patient safety, acceptability to patients and staff and cost of the new model of care.This single-centre pilot study provided patient care (n = 37) to those receiving OAM therapies within a community setting for a 4-month period. Consent rate was high with no attrition other than for clinical reasons. There were 151 contacts with the sample during that time.Results demonstrated that the ANP-led intervention and new model for OAM care was safe, highly acceptable to patients and staff and that related healthcare costs could be captured. Based on the success of this pilot study, the authors conclude that a community-based ANP-led integrated oncology care model for adults receiving OAMs is feasible, and a definitive trial is warranted.Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN10401455 . Registered 30 November 2020.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: A knowledge gap exists around the costs and budget impact of specialist hypertension clinics. This study reports on the cost of providing care in a multidisciplinary hypertension clinic staffed by nephrologist, endocrinologist and cardiologist, which manages patients with suspected secondary hypertension and/or apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. The aim of this study is to provide the evidence required to inform policy and planning care pathways for this patient group. METHODS: A cost analysis from a healthcare provider perspective using micro-costing techniques was conducted to estimate the direct implementation costs of existing standard practice for the care pathway of patients attending the multidisciplinary hypertension clinic. Sixty-five patients originally recruited for a study of medication adherence in hypertension were included in the sample. RESULTS: The total care-pathway cost per patient, taking into account clinic visits, clinical reviews, investigations and MDT discussion, was estimated to be 3277, on average. For the patient subgroups, the average cost was 5644 for patients diagnosed with primary aldosteronism and 1446 for patients diagnosed with essential hypertension. CONCLUSION: There is significant cost associated with providing specialized hypertension care for patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. Given the high rates of nonadherence in this population, it is likely that some of this cost could be avoided with better detection and management of medication adherence in this challenging population. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of this or similar models of care by exploring the benefit to patients and the wider healthcare context of providing care of this type.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Humanos , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Atención Ambulatoria , Cumplimiento de la MedicaciónRESUMEN
Background: Multimorbidity has emerged as a major challenge facing health services globally, which will place a substantial burden on health systems going forward. This paper seeks to estimate the association between multimorbidity and direct healthcare costs among older people in Ireland from a healthcare system perspective. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of data on 8,447 community-dwelling adults aged 50 and over collected between 2009 and 2011 as part of the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing. Multivariable generalised linear model regression, employing a log-link and Poisson family distribution, is used to assess the association between self-reported multimorbidity status and direct healthcare costs. Results: For the full sample, 21.20% reported having no chronic conditions, 27.39% had one chronic condition, and 51.40% had multimorbidity. After controlling for a range of socio-demographic and health status variables, we found that relative to those reporting no chronic conditions, one chronic condition was associated with additional average annual costs of 513 (95% CIs: 245, 781), increasing to 1277 (95% CIs: 942, 1612) for those with 6 or more chronic conditions. Relative to those reporting 2 chronic conditions, 4 chronic conditions were associated with additional costs of 411 (95% CIs: 106, 716), 5 chronic conditions with 591 (95% CIs: 214, 969), and 6 or more chronic conditions with additional average costs of 1006 (95% CIs: 641, 1371). Conclusion: This study finds positive and significant associations between the number of chronic conditions and direct healthcare costs and further highlights the potential economic benefits from preventing the onset and progression of multimorbidity.
RESUMEN
Importance: Gestational diabetes is a common complication of pregnancy and the optimal management is uncertain. Objective: To test whether early initiation of metformin reduces insulin initiation or improves fasting hyperglycemia at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2 centers in Ireland (one tertiary hospital and one smaller regional hospital). Participants were enrolled from June 2017 through September 2022 and followed up until 12 weeks' postpartum. Participants comprised 510 individuals (535 pregnancies) diagnosed with gestational diabetes based on World Health Organization 2013 criteria. Interventions: Randomized 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum dose, 2500 mg) in addition to usual care. Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level of 5.1 mmol/L or greater at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Results: Among 510 participants (mean age, 34.3 years), 535 pregnancies were randomized. The primary composite outcome was not significantly different between groups and occurred in 150 pregnancies (56.8%) in the metformin group and 167 pregnancies (63.7%) in the placebo group (between-group difference, -6.9% [95% CI, -15.1% to 1.4%]; relative risk, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.78-1.02]; P = .13). Of 6 prespecified secondary maternal outcomes, 3 favored the metformin group, including time to insulin initiation, self-reported capillary glycemic control, and gestational weight gain. Secondary neonatal outcomes differed by group, with smaller neonates (lower mean birth weights, a lower proportion weighing >4 kg, a lower proportion in the >90% percentile, and smaller crown-heel length) in the metformin group without differences in neonatal intensive care needs, respiratory distress requiring respiratory support, jaundice requiring phototherapy, major congenital anomalies, neonatal hypoglycemia, or proportion with 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7. Conclusion and relevance: Early treatment with metformin was not superior to placebo for the composite primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcome data support further investigation of metformin in larger clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980276; EudraCT: 2016-001644-19.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Gestacional , Metformina , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Embarazo , Peso al Nacer , Diabetes Gestacional/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Insulina/administración & dosificación , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Metformina/administración & dosificación , Metformina/efectos adversos , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Método Doble CiegoRESUMEN
The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a staff-delivered physical exercise program embedded into the daily lives of older adults living in nursing homes. A randomized controlled pilot feasibility study was carried out, which included quantitative, qualitative, and economic assessments at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 months. Two nursing homes (one intervention and one control) took part. The exercise program was carried out on 3 days per week for 12 weeks and consisted of a program of Morning Movement (walking and sit-to-stand exercises) and Activity Bursts. The results confirm that the intervention and study processes are largely acceptable and feasible to implement in the nursing home setting. Potential short-term improvements in physical mobility and quality of life were noticed as positive mean changes and supported by qualitative assessment. Future randomized controlled trials should consider using the 6-meter walk test and refining nursing home and participant eligibility criteria.
Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico , Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Anciano , Estudios de Factibilidad , Casas de Salud , Terapia por Ejercicio/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
Background: Hypertension is one of the most important risk factors for stroke and heart disease. Recent international guidelines have stated that 'poor adherence to treatment - in addition to physician inertia - is the most important cause of poor blood pressure control'. The MaxImising Adherence, Minimising Inertia (MIAMI) intervention, which has been developed using a systematic, theoretical, user-centred approach, aims to support general practitioners (GPs) and people with hypertension to maximise medication use, through the facilitation of adequate information exchange within consultations about long-term antihypertensive medication use and adherence skill development. The aim of the MIAMI pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to gather and analyse feasibility data to allow us to (1) refine the intervention, and (2) determine the feasibility of a definitive RCT. Methods: GP practices (n = 6) will be recruited and randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3) or usual care control arm (n = 3). Each practice will recruit 10 patient participants. For a patient to be eligible they must have a diagnosis of hypertension, be on two or more anti-hypertensive medications, must not be achieving recommended blood pressure levels, and be over the age of 65 years. Participants in the intervention arm will meet their GP and receive the MIAMI intervention twice over three months. Quantitative data collection will take place at baseline and three month follow up. A pilot health economic analysis and a qualitative sub-study will also be incorporated into the study. Discussion: This pilot cluster RCT of the MIAMI intervention will allow us to gather valuable acceptability and feasibility data to further refine the intervention so it optimally designed for both GP and patient use. In particular, the qualitative component will provide an insight into GP and patient experiences of using the intervention.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MyComrade (MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. AIM: The pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial of the MyComrade intervention across two healthcare systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)). DESIGN: A pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted (clustered at general practice level), using specific progression criteria and a process evaluation framework. SETTING: General practices in the ROI and NI. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible practices were those in defined geographical areas who had GP's and Practice Based Pharmacists (PBP's) (in NI) willing to conduct medication reviews. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years and over, with multi morbidity and on ten or more medications. INTERVENTION: The MyComrade intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care, using a planned collaborative approach guided by an agreed checklist, within a specified timeframe. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes, using pre-determined progression criteria, assessed practice and patient recruitment and retention and intervention acceptability and fidelity. Anonymised patient-related quantitative data, from practice medical records and patient questionnaires were collected at baseline, 4 and 8 months, to inform potential outcome measures for a definitive trial. These included (i) practice outcomes-completion of medication reviews; (ii) patient outcomes-treatment burden and quality of life; (iii) prescribing outcomes-number and changes of prescribed medications and incidents of potentially inappropriate prescribing; and (iv) economic cost analysis. The framework Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT) in conjunction with a priori progression criteria and process evaluation was used to guide the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: The recruitment of practices (n = 15) and patients (n = 121, mean age 73 years and 51% female), representing 94% and 38% of a priori targets respectively, was more complex and took longer than anticipated; impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Retention rates of 100% of practices and 85% of patients were achieved. Both practice staff and patients found the intervention acceptable and reported strong fidelity to the My Comrade intervention components. Some practice staff highlighted concerns such as poor communication of the reviews to patients, dissatisfaction regarding incentivisation and in ROI the sustainability of two GPs collaboratively conducting the medication reviews. Assessing outcomes from the collected data was found feasible and appropriate for a definitive trial. Two progression criteria met the 'Go' criterion (practice and patient retention), two met the 'Amend' criterion (practice recruitment and intervention implementation) and one indicated a 'Stop - unless changes possible' (patient recruitment). CONCLUSION: The MyComrade intervention was found to be feasible to conduct within two different healthcare systems. Recruitment of participants requires significant time and effort given the nature of this population and the pairing of GP and pharmacist may be more sustainable to implement in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ISRCTN, ISRCTN80017020 ; date of confirmation 4/11/2019; retrospectively registered.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of offering once-off birth cohort testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) to people in Ireland born between 1965 and 1985, the cohort with the highest reported prevalence of undiagnosed chronic HCV infection. METHODS: Systematic and opportunistic HCV birth cohort testing programs, implemented over a 4-year timeframe, were compared with the current practice of population risk-based testing only in a closed-cohort decision tree and Markov model hybrid over a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented from the health system's perspective in 2020 euro (). Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic, probabilistic, scenario, and threshold analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, systematic testing yielded the largest cost and health benefits, followed by opportunistic testing and risk-based testing. Compared with risk-based testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for opportunistic testing was 14 586 (95% confidence interval 4185-33 527) per QALY gained. Compared with opportunistic testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for systematic testing was 16 827 (95% confidence interval 5106-38 843) per QALY gained. These findings were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both systematic and opportunistic birth cohort testing would be considered an efficient use of resources, but systematic testing was the optimal strategy at willingness-to-pay threshold values typically used in Ireland. Although cost-effective, any decision to introduce birth cohort testing for HCV (in Ireland or elsewhere) must be balanced with considerations regarding the feasibility and budget impact of implementing a national testing program given high initial costs and resource use.
Asunto(s)
Hepatitis C Crónica , Hepatitis C , Humanos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Hepacivirus , Cohorte de Nacimiento , Hepatitis C/diagnóstico , Hepatitis C/epidemiología , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Hepatitis C Crónica/diagnóstico , Hepatitis C Crónica/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Despite the potential of machine learning techniques to improve dementia diagnostic processes, research outcomes are often not readily translated to or adopted in clinical practice. Importantly, the time taken to administer diagnostic assessment has yet to be taken into account in feature-selection based optimisation for dementia diagnosis. We address these issues by considering the impact of assessment time as a practical constraint for feature selection of cognitive and functional assessments in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. METHODS: We use three different feature selection algorithms to select informative subsets of dementia assessment items from a large open-source dementia dataset. We use cost-sensitive feature selection to optimise our feature selection results for assessment time as well as diagnostic accuracy. To encourage clinical adoption and further evaluation of our proposed accuracy-vs-cost optimisation algorithms, we also implement a sandbox-like toolbox with graphical user interface to evaluate user-chosen subsets of assessment items. RESULTS: We find that there are subsets of accuracy-cost optimised assessment items that can perform better in terms of diagnostic accuracy and/or total assessment time than most other standard assessments. DISCUSSION: Overall, our analysis and accompanying sandbox tool can facilitate clinical users and other stakeholders to apply their own domain knowledge to analyse and decide which dementia diagnostic assessment items are useful, and aid the redesigning of dementia diagnostic assessments. Clinical Impact (Clinical Research): By optimising diagnostic accuracy and assessment time, we redesign predictive and efficient dementia diagnostic assessments and develop a sandbox interface to facilitate evaluation and testing by clinicians and non-specialists.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de Alzheimer , Demencia , Enfermedad de Alzheimer/diagnóstico , Demencia/diagnóstico , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Humanos , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making (MyComrade) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Our aim in this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of a trial of the intervention with unique modifications accounting for contextual variations in two neighbouring health systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)). METHODS: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, using a mixed-methods process evaluation to investigate the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention based on pre-defined progression criteria. A total of 16 practices will be recruited (eight in ROI; eight in NI), and four practices in each jurisdiction will be randomly allocated to intervention or control. Twenty people living with multimorbidity and prescribed ≥ 10 repeat medications will be recruited from each practice prior to practice randomisation. In intervention practices, the MyComrade intervention will be delivered by pairs of general practitioners (GPs) in ROI, and a GP and practice-based pharmacist (PBP) in NI. The GPs/GP and PBP will schedule the time to review the medications together using a checklist. Usual care will proceed in practices in the control arm. Data will be collected via electronic health records and postal questionnaires at recruitment and 4 and 8 months after randomisation. Qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and explore experiences related to multimorbidity management will be conducted with a purposive sample of GPs, PBPs, practice administration staff and patients in intervention and control practices. The feasibility of conducting a health economic evaluation as part of a future definitive trial will be assessed. DISCUSSION: The findings of this pilot study will assess the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention in two different health systems. Evaluation of the progression criteria will guide the decision to progress to a definitive trial and inform trial design. The findings will also contribute to the growing evidence-base related to intervention development and feasibility studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN80017020 . Date of confirmation is 4/11/2019.
RESUMEN
Gallstones affect 20% of the Western population and will grow in clinical significance as obesity and metabolic diseases become more prevalent. Gallbladder removal (cholecystectomy) is a common treatment for diseases caused by gallstones, with 1.2 million surgeries in the US each year, each costing USD 10,000. Gallbladder disease has a significant impact on the logistics and economics of healthcare. We discuss the two most common presentations of gallbladder disease (biliary colic and cholecystitis) and their pathophysiology, risk factors, signs and symptoms. We discuss the factors that affect clinical care, including diagnosis, treatment outcomes, surgical risk factors, quality of life and cost-efficacy. We highlight the importance of standardised guidelines and objective scoring systems in improving quality, consistency and compatibility across healthcare providers and in improving patient outcomes, collaborative opportunities and the cost-effectiveness of treatment. Guidelines and scoring only exist in select areas of the care pathway. Opportunities exist elsewhere in the care pathway.
Asunto(s)
Colecistitis , Cólico , Enfermedades de la Vesícula Biliar , Colecistectomía , Colecistitis/complicaciones , Colecistitis/cirugía , Cólico/diagnóstico , Cólico/etiología , Cólico/terapia , Enfermedades de la Vesícula Biliar/complicaciones , Enfermedades de la Vesícula Biliar/cirugía , Humanos , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The D1 Now intervention is designed to improve outcomes in young adults living with type 1 diabetes. It consists of three components: an agenda-setting tool, an interactive messaging system and a support worker. The aim of the D1 Now pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to gather and analyse acceptability and feasibility data to allow (1) further refinement of the D1 Now intervention, and (2) determination of the feasibility of evaluating the D1 Now intervention in a future definitive RCT. METHODS: A pilot cluster RCT with two intervention arms and a control arm was conducted over 12 months. Quantitative data collection was based on a core outcome set and took place at baseline and 12 months. Semi-structured interviews with participants took place at 6, 9 and 12 months. Fidelity and health economic costings were also assessed. RESULTS: Four diabetes centres and 57 young adults living with type 1 diabetes took part. 50% of eligible young adults were recruited and total loss to follow-up was 12%. Fidelity, as measured on a study delivery checklist, was good but there were three minor processes that were not delivered as intended in the protocol. Overall, the qualitative data demonstrated that the intervention was considered acceptable and feasible, though this differed across intervention components. The agenda-setting tool and support worker intervention components were acceptable to both young adults and staff, but views on the interactive messaging system were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Some modifications are required to the D1 Now intervention components and research processes but with these in place progression to a definitive RCT is considered feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN (ref: ISRCTN74114336 ).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is a major public health concern. Complex interventions, incorporating individualized care plans, may be appropriate for patients with multimorbidity given their individualized and variable needs. There is a dearth of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of complex multimorbidity interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the cost-effectiveness of a 6-week occupational therapy-led self-management support programme (OPTIMAL) for adults with multimorbidity. METHODS: Economic evaluation, from a healthcare perspective, was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of 149 adults with multimorbidity. Intervention was the OPTIMAL programme with a comparison of usual primary care. Incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and expected cost-effectiveness were estimated at 6 months and uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The intervention was associated with a mean improvement in QALYs gained of 0.031 per patient (P-value: 0.063; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: -0.002 to 0.063) and a mean reduction in total costs of 2,548 (P-value: 0.114; 95% CIs: -5,606 to 509) per patient. At cost-effectiveness threshold values of 20,000 and 45,000 per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was estimated to be 0.951 and 0.958, respectively. The results remained consistent across all subgroups examined. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the limited evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of complex interventions for multimorbidity, and highlights the potential for the OPTIMAL programme to be cost-effective. Further studies are warranted to explore the clinical and cost-effectiveness of complex interventions for the multimorbidity patient population, and for subgroups within it. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial number: ISRCTN67235963.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Ocupacional , Automanejo , Adulto , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Multimorbilidad , Atención Primaria de Salud , Calidad de Vida , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recognising the significant public health threat posed by hepatitis C, international targets have been established by the World Health Organization with the aim of eradicating the hepatitis C virus (HCV) by 2030. With the availability of safe and effective therapies, the greatest challenge to achieving elimination is the identification and treatment of those currently undiagnosed. This systematic review aimed to identify and appraise the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of birth cohort, universal, and age-based general population testing for identifying people with undiagnosed chronic HCV infection. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in Medline, Embase and grey literature sources to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 17 July 2020. Retrieved citations were independently reviewed by two reviewers according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction and critical appraisal were completed in duplicate. Study quality, relevance and credibility were assessed using the Consensus for Health Economic Criteria and the ISPOR questionnaires. All costs were reported in 2019 Irish Euro following adjustment for inflation and purchasing power parity. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of 20,000 and 45,000 were adopted as reference points for interpreting cost-effectiveness in the narrative synthesis. The systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. RESULTS: Overall, 4622 citations were retrieved in the literature search. Of these, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six (22%) of the 27 studies were rated as low quality, 17 (63%) were moderate quality and four (15%) were high quality. Compared with no testing or risk-based testing: 14 of 16 (88%) cost-utility analyses found that birth cohort testing was cost effective, eight of nine (89%) analyses found that universal testing was cost effective, and eight of eight (100%) analyses found that age-based general population testing was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was influenced by disease prevalence and progression, testing and treatment uptake, treatment eligibility of those identified by testing, the cost of treatment and the proportion of those treated that achieve sustained virological response. CONCLUSION: Overall, the international evidence supports the potential cost effectiveness of birth cohort, universal, and age-based general population testing, but is caveated by study generalisability, specifically the transferability of findings from one jurisdiction to another, and institutional variations in healthcare delivery systems and budgetary constraints. The cost effectiveness of each approach will vary according to population- and health system-specific characteristics such as epidemiological context, testing coverage, linkage to care and capacity to treat. Given issues regarding the transferability of economic evaluations (for example, model inputs and assumptions) and the significant resources required to implement these interventions, jurisdiction-specific economic evaluations and budget impact analyses will likely be required to inform investment and implementation decisions. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019127159. Registered 29 April 2019.
Asunto(s)
Hepatitis C Crónica , Hepatitis C , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C/diagnóstico , Hepatitis C/economía , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease, which given its existing and projected prevalence, is likely to pose a significant economic burden, both in terms of directs costs to the healthcare system and indirect costs to society. We aimed to estimate the economic burden of type 1 diabetes in Ireland, which at present, is unknown. METHODS: A cost of illness study was undertaken to estimate the cost of type 1 diabetes in Ireland for 2018. Data for prevalence, morbidity, mortality, healthcare resource use, absenteeism, and unit costs were obtained from national, and where necessary, international sources. Direct healthcare costs were estimated for primary care, outpatient, emergency and inpatient care, for associated complications, structured education programmes, insulin and related care. Additionally, indirect costs from lost earnings due to premature death and employee absenteeism were estimated. RESULTS: Type 1 diabetes was estimated to cost 129 million in Ireland in 2018, with direct healthcare costs accounting for 81.5 million or 63% and indirect costs for 47.5 million or 37% of the total. On average, this amounted to 3994 per patient in direct healthcare costs and 2326 per patient in indirect costs. CONCLUSION: Type 1 diabetes is a leading public health problem. Our study is the first to assess the economic burden of type 1 diabetes in Ireland, and our results should be informative to policymakers tasked with prioritising healthcare and research funding resource allocation.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Absentismo , Costo de Enfermedad , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/epidemiología , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/terapia , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Humanos , Irlanda/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Post-term pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal complications, respiratory distress and trauma to the neonate. Amniotic membrane sweeping has been recommended as a simple procedure to promote the spontaneous onset of labour. However, despite its widespread use, there is an absence of evidence on (a) its effectiveness and (b) its optimal timing and frequency. The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. We will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed trial interventions to clinicians and women (through focus group interviews). METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded factorial design. Pregnant women with a live, singleton foetus ≥ 38 weeks gestation; cephalic presentation; longitudinal lie; intact membranes; English speaking and ≥ 18 years of age will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to membrane sweep versus no membrane sweep. Women allocated randomly to a sweep will then be randomised further (factorial component) to early (from 39 weeks) versus late (from 40 weeks) sweep commencement and a single versus weekly sweep. The proposed feasibility study consists of four work packages, i.e. (1) a multicentre, pilot randomised trial; (2) a health economic analysis; (3) a qualitative study; and (4) a study within the host trial (a SWAT). Outcomes to be collected include recruitment and retention rates, compliance with protocol, randomisation and allocation processes, attrition rates and cost-effectiveness. Focus groups will be held with women and clinicians to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed intervention, study procedures and perceived barriers and enablers to recruitment. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. Results will inform whether and how the design of the definitive trial as originally envisaged should be delivered or adapted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04307199 . Registered on 12 March 2020.