Detection and Control of Pregnancy Hypertension Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure With Automated Telemonitoring: Cost Analyses of the BUMP Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy hypertension continues to cause maternal and perinatal morbidity. Two linked UK randomized trials showed adding self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring to usual antenatal care did not result in earlier detection or better control of pregnancy hypertension. This article reports the trials' integrated cost analyses. METHODS: Two cost analyses. SMBP with usual care was compared with usual care alone in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (BUMP 1 trial [Blood Pressure Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancy to Improve the Detection and Monitoring of Hypertension], n=2441) and with hypertension (BUMP 2 trial, n=850). Clinical notes review identified participant-level antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care and these were costed. Comparisons between trial arms used means and 95% CIs. Within BUMP 2, chronic and gestational hypertension cohorts were analyzed separately. Telemonitoring system costs were reported separately. RESULTS: In BUMP 1, mean (SE) total costs with SMBP and with usual care were £7200 (£323) and £7063 (£245), respectively, mean difference (95% CI), £151 (-£633 to £936). For the BUMP 2 chronic hypertension cohort, corresponding figures were £13 384 (£1230), £12 614 (£1081), mean difference £323 (-£2904 to £3549) and for the gestational hypertension cohort were £11 456 (£901), £11 145 (£959), mean difference £41 (-£2486 to £2567). The per-person cost of telemonitoring was £6 in BUMP 1 and £29 in BUMP 2. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was not associated with changes in the cost of health care contacts for individuals at risk of, or with, pregnancy hypertension. This is reassuring as SMBP in pregnancy is widely prevalent, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334149.

Preferences for interventions designed to increase cervical screening uptake in non-attending young women: How findings from a discrete choice experiment compare with observed behaviours in a trial.

BACKGROUND: Young women's attendance at cervical screening in the UK is continuing to fall, and the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is rising. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the preferences of non-attending young women for alternative ways of delivering cervical screening. DESIGN: Postal discrete choice experiment (DCE) conducted during the STRATEGIC study of interventions for increasing cervical screening uptake. Attributes included action required to arrange a test, location of the test, availability of a nurse navigator and cost to the National Health Service. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Non-attending young women in two UK regions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses were analysed using a mixed multinomial logit model. A predictive analysis identified the most preferable strategy compared to current screening. Preferences from the DCE were compared with observed behaviours during the STRATEGIC trial. RESULTS: The DCE response rate was 5.5% (222/4000), and 94% of respondents agreed screening is important. Preference heterogeneity existed around attributes with strong evidence for test location. Relative to current screening, unsolicited self-sampling kits for home use appeared most preferable. The STRATEGIC trial showed this same intervention to be most effective although many women who received it and were screened, attended for conventional cytology instead. CONCLUSIONS: The DCE and trial identified the unsolicited self-sampling kit as the most preferred/effective intervention. The DCE suggested that the decision of some women receiving the kit in the trial to attend for conventional cytology may be due to anxieties around home testing coupled with a knowledge that ignoring the kit could potentially have life-changing consequences.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) is bleeding that develops in the oesophagus, stomach or proximal duodenum. Peptic ulcers, caused by Helicobacter pylori infection or use of NSAIDs and low-dose aspirin (LDA), are the most common cause. Although the incidence and mortality associated with NVUGIB have been decreasing owing to considerable advances in the prevention and management of NVUGIB over the past 20 years, it remains a common clinical problem with an annual incidence of ∼67 per 100,000 individuals in the United States in 2012. NVUGIB is a medical emergency, and mortality is in the range ∼1-5%. After resuscitation and initial assessment, early (within 24 hours) diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy together with intragastric pH control with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) form the basis of treatment. With a growing ageing population treated with antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medications, the clinical management of NVUGIB is complex as the risk between gastrointestinal bleeding events and adverse cardiovascular events needs to be balanced. The best clinical approach includes identification of risk factors and prevention of bleeding; available strategies include continuous treatment with PPIs or H. pylori eradication in those at increased risk of developing NVUGIB. Treatment with PPIs and/or use of cyclooxygenase-2-selective NSAIDs should be implemented in those patients at risk of NVUGIB who need NSAIDs and/or LDA.

Quantifying the healthcare costs of treating severely bleeding major trauma patients: a national study for England.

INTRODUCTION: Severely bleeding trauma patients are a small proportion of the major trauma population but account for 40% of all trauma deaths. Healthcare resource use and costs are likely to be substantial but have not been fully quantified. Knowledge of costs is essential for developing targeted cost reduction strategies, informing health policy, and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: In collaboration with the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) detailed patient-level data on in-hospital resource use, extended care at hospital discharge, and readmissions up to 12 months post-injury were collected on 441 consecutive adult major trauma patients with severe bleeding presenting at 22 hospitals (21 in England and one in Wales). Resource use data were costed using national unit costs and mean costs estimated for the cohort and for clinically relevant subgroups. Using nationally available data on trauma presentations in England, patient-level cost estimates were up-scaled to a national level. RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) total cost of initial hospital inpatient care was £19,770 (£18,177 to £21,364) per patient, of which 62% was attributable to ventilation, intensive care, and ward stays, 16% to surgery, and 12% to blood component transfusion. Nursing home and rehabilitation unit care and re-admissions to hospital increased the cost to £20,591 (£18,924 to £22,257). Costs were significantly higher for more severely injured trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥15) and those with blunt injuries. Cost estimates for England were £148,300,000, with over a third of this cost attributable to patients aged 65 years and over. CONCLUSIONS: Severely bleeding major trauma patients are a high cost subgroup of all major trauma patients, and the cost burden is projected to rise further as a consequence of an aging population and as evidence continues to emerge on the benefits of early and simultaneous administration of blood products in pre-specified ratios. The findings from this study provide a previously unreported baseline from which the potential impact of changes to service provision and/or treatment practice can begin to be evaluated. Further studies are still required to determine the full costs of post-discharge care requirements, which are also likely to be substantial.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions in patients with blood malignancies: cost analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost analysis uses data from a randomized trial comparing a no prophylaxis versus prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion policy (counts <10 × 10(9) /L) in adult patients with hematologic malignancies. Results are presented for all patients and separately for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (autoHSCT) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT) patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected to 30 days on PLT and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, major bleeds, serious adverse events, critical care, and hematology ward stay. Data were costed using 2011 to 2012 UK unit costs and converted into US$. Sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain cost variables. RESULTS: Across the whole trial no prophylaxis saved costs compared to prophylaxis: -$1760 per patient (95% confidence interval [CI], -$3250 to -$249; p < 0.05). For autoHSCT patients there was no cost difference between arms: -$110 per patient (95% CI, -$1648 to $1565; p = 0.89). For chemo/alloHSCT patients no prophylaxis cost significantly less than prophylaxis: -$5686 per patient (95% CI, -$8580 to -$2853; p < 0.01). The cost impact of no prophylaxis differed significantly between subgroups. Sensitivity analyses varying daily treatment costs and ward stay for chemo/alloHSCT patients reduced cost differences to -$941 per patient (p = 0.21) across the whole trial and -$2927 per patient (p < 0.05) in chemo/alloHSCT subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether a no-prophylaxis policy saves costs overall. In chemo/alloHSCT patients cost savings are apparent but their magnitude is sensitive to a number of variables and must be considered alongside clinical data showing increased bleeding rates. In autoHSCT patients savings generated through lower PLT use in no-prophylaxis arm were offset by cost increases elsewhere, for example, additional RBC transfusions. Cost-effectiveness analyses of alternative PLT transfusion policies simultaneously considering costs and patient-reported outcomes are warranted.

Restrictive vs liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized feasibility trial.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is the commonest reason for hospitalization with hemorrhage in the UK and the leading indication for transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs). Observational studies suggest an association between more liberal RBC transfusion and adverse patient outcomes, and a recent randomised trial reported increased further bleeding and mortality with a liberal transfusion policy. TRIGGER (Transfusion in Gastrointestinal Bleeding) is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial which aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion policy in adult patients admitted with AUGIB. The trial will take place in 6 UK hospitals, and each centre will be randomly allocated to a transfusion policy. Clinicians throughout each hospital will manage all eligible patients according to the transfusion policy for the 6-month trial recruitment period. In the restrictive centers, patients become eligible for RBC transfusion when their hemoglobin is <8 g/dL. In the liberal centers patients become eligible for transfusion once their hemoglobin is <10 g/dL. All clinicians will have the discretion to transfuse outside of the policy but will be asked to document the reasons for doing so. Feasibility outcome measures include protocol adherence, recruitment rate, and evidence of selection bias. Clinical outcome measures include further bleeding, mortality, thromboembolic events, and infections. Quality of life will be measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D at day 28, and the costs associated with hospitalization for AUGIB in the UK will be estimated. Consent will be sought from participants or their representatives according to patient capacity for use of routine hospital data and day 28 follow up. The study has ethical approval for conduct in England and Scotland. Results will be analysed according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan and disseminated in peer reviewed publications to relevant stakeholders. The results of this study will inform the feasibility and design of a phase III randomized trial.

Cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care.

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of meropenem with that of imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in hospital intensive care in the UK. A Markov model was constructed to model lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem and imipenem plus cilastatin for the treatment of severe infections in intensive care. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Estimated treatment costs for the patient cohort were pound 14,938 with meropenem and pound 15,585 with imipenem plus cilastatin. QALYs gained were 7,495 with meropenem and 7,413 with imipenem plus cilastatin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be significantly less costly (-pound 636.47, 95% CI -pound 132.33 to -pound 1,140.62) and more effective (0.084, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.144). Meropenem thus appears significantly more effective and less expensive than imipenem plus cilastatin and should therefore be considered the dominant treatment strategy.

Trial-based cost-utility comparison of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation and continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris.

This study examined from a health service perspective whether percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation (PMR) plus standard medical management is cost-effective when compared with standard medical management alone in the treatment of refractory angina. This involved a cost-utility analysis using patient-specific data from a single-centre, randomised, controlled trial carried out in the United Kingdom. Of 73 patients diagnosed as having refractory angina and not suitable for conventional forms of revascularisation, 36 were randomised to PMR plus medical management and 37 to medical management alone. We collected costs to the health service of PMR and all secondary sector health care contacts and cardiac-related medication in the 12 months following randomisation. Patient utility, measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire, was combined with 12-month survival data to generate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The mean 12-month cost per patient for PMR was 8,307 pounds, and that for medical management was 1,888 pounds, giving a cost difference of 6,410 pounds. The mean QALY difference favoured PMR at 0.126, giving an incremental cost per QALY of 50,873 pounds. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicates that the probability of PMR being cost-effective over the first 12 months is quite low. Whilst a longer period of follow-up might indicate continued benefit from PMR, which would make the intervention economically more attractive, PMR could not be considered cost-effective based on 1-year follow-up data.

Systematic review comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections. DATA SOURCES: CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for abstracts and papers. All searching was completed in March 2004. No restriction was placed on language. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of adult patients with severe infections treated with meropenem or imipenem plus cilastatin at an equal dose, on a gram-for-gram basis, and with the same dosing regimen. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed papers against the inclusion/exclusion criteria and for methodological quality with differences in opinion adjudicated by a third party. Data were extracted on clinical response, bacteriologic response, mortality and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 27 trials met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were carried out using a Fixed Effects model. Results demonstrated that when compared to imipenem plus cilastatin, meropenem is associated with a significantly greater clinical response (Relative Risk 1.04; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.01-1.06), a significantly greater bacteriologic response (RR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01-1.08), a non-significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.71-1.35), and a significantly lower adverse event rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrates that meropenem compared to imipenem plus cilastatin has a significantly greater clinical and bacteriologic response with a significant reduction in adverse events. There was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias and the analyses were robust to changes in the inclusion/exclusion criteria and use of a Random Effects model.