Cost-effectiveness of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the commonest cause of adult spinal cord dysfunction worldwide, for which surgery is the mainstay of treatment. At present, there is limited literature on the costs associated with the surgical management of DCM, and none from the United Kingdom (UK). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DCM surgery within the National Health Service, UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Incidence of DCM was identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database for a single year using five ICD-10 diagnostic codes to represent DCM. Health Resource Group (HRG) data was used to estimate the mean incremental surgery (treatment) costs compared to non-surgical care, and the incremental effect (quality adjusted life year (QALY) gain) was based on data from a previous study. A cost per QALY value of <£30,000/QALY (GBP) was considered acceptable and cost-effective, as per the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance. A sensitivity analysis was undertaken (±5%, ±10% and ±20%) to account for variance in both the cost of admission and QALY gain. RESULTS: The total number of admissions for DCM in 2018 was 4,218. Mean age was 62 years, with 54% of admissions being of working age (18-65 years). The overall estimated cost of admissions for DCM was £38,871,534 for the year. The mean incremental (per patient) cost of surgical management of DCM was estimated to be £9,216 (ranged £2,358 to £9,304), with a QALY gain of 0.64, giving an estimated cost per QALY value of £14,399/QALY. Varying the QALY gain by ±20%, resulted in cost/QALY figures between £12,000 (+20%) and £17,999 (-20%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is estimated to be a cost-effective treatment of DCM amongst the UK population.

Bimodal Release Ondansetron Improves Stool Consistency and Symptomatology in Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Previous, small studies have suggested that ondansetron has beneficial effects in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of daily 12 mg RHB-102, an investigational bimodal release ondansetron tablet, in IBS-D. METHODS: Men and women with IBS-D by the Rome III criteria, Bristol Stool Scale ≥6 on 2 or more days weekly, and average daily worst pain intensity ≥3/10 were randomized 60:40 to RHB-102 or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The primary end point was overall stool consistency response for at least 4 of 8 weeks. Secondary end points included overall worst abdominal pain and overall composite response, defined as response on both abdominal pain and stool consistency end points. RESULTS: Overall stool consistency response rates were 56.0% and 35.3% (RHB-102 vs placebo, P = 0.036) and similar among male and female patients. Overall pain response (50.7% vs 39.2%) and composite response rates (40.0% vs 25.5%) favored RHB-102, although these differences were not statistically significant. Stool consistency response rates were enhanced in patients with baseline C-reactive protein above the median (2.09 mg/L), 59.5%, vs 23.1% (P = 0.009). Overall rates of adverse events were similar, with a higher rate of constipation in RHB-102 patients (13.3% vs 3.9%) that resolved rapidly on withholding treatment. DISCUSSION: RHB-102 was effective and safe in the treatment of men and women with IBS-D. Baseline C-reactive protein seemed to be predictive of response.

Knee Fix or Replace Trial (KFORT): a randomized controlled feasibility study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale, appropriately powered, randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing internal fracture fixation and distal femoral replacement (DFR) for distal femoral fractures in older patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven centres recruited patients into the study. Patients were eligible if they were greater than 65 years of age with a distal femoral fracture, and if the surgeon felt that they were suitable for either form of treatment. Outcome measures included the patients' willingness to participate, clinicians' willingness to recruit, rates of loss to follow-up, the ability to capture data, estimates of standard deviation to inform the sample size calculation, and the main determinants of cost. The primary clinical outcome measure was the EuroQol five-dimensional index (EQ-5D) at six months following injury. RESULTS: Of 36 patients who met the inclusion criteria, five declined to participate and eight were not recruited, leaving 23 patients to be randomized. One patient withdrew before surgery. Of the remaining patients, five (23%) withdrew during the follow-up period and six (26%) died. A 100% response rate was achieved for the EQ-5D at each follow-up point, excluding one missing datapoint at baseline. In the DFR group, the mean cost of the implant outweighed the mean cost of many other items, including theatre time, length of stay, and readmissions. For a powered RCT, a total sample size of 1400 would be required with 234 centres recruiting over three years. At six months, the EQ-5D utility index was lower in the DFR group. CONCLUSION: This study found that running a full-scale trial in this country would not be feasible. However, it may be feasible to undertake an international multicentre trial, and our findings provide some guidance about the power of such a study, the numbers required, and some challenges that should be anticipated and addressed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1408-1415.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of manual chest physiotherapy techniques on quality of life at six months post exacerbation of COPD (MATREX): a randomised controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: Manual chest physiotherapy (MCP) techniques involving chest percussion, vibration, and shaking have long been used in the treatment of respiratory conditions. However, methodological limitations in existing research have led to a state of clinical equipoise with respect to this treatment. Thus, for patients hospitalised with an exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), clinical preference tends to dictate whether MCP is given to assist with sputum clearance. We standardised the delivery of MCP and assessed its effectiveness on disease-specific quality of life. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled trial powered for equivalence, 526 patients hospitalised with acute COPD exacerbation were enrolled from four centres in the UK. Patients were allocated to receive MCP plus advice on airway clearance or advice on chest clearance alone. The primary outcome was a COPD specific quality of life measure, the Saint Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at six months post randomisation. Analyses were by intention to treat (ITT). This study was registered, ISRCTN13825248. RESULTS: All patients were included in the analyses, of which 372 (71%) provided evaluable data for the primary outcome. An effect size of 0·3 standard deviations in SGRQ score was specified as the threshold for superiority. The ITT analyses showed no significant difference in SGRQ for patients who did, or did not receive MCP (95% CI -0·14 to 0·19). CONCLUSIONS: These data do not lend support to the routine use of MCP in the management of acute exacerbation of COPD. However, this does not mean that MCP is of no therapeutic value to COPD patients in specific circumstances.