Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects. RESULTS: Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

An intervention to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term: results of a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial (LoTS2Care).

BACKGROUND: To address the limited provision of longer-term stroke care, we conducted a programme of research (LoTS2Care) to develop and test an intervention to form part of a replicable longer-term care strategy. New Start, a programme of facilitated self-management, was developed to be delivered at 6 months post-stroke by trained facilitators. Here, we report the findings from the final workstream of this programme, which aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial of the developed intervention (New Start) to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term. METHODS: A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in English and Welsh NHS stroke services. Stroke services (clusters) were randomised on a 1:1 basis to implement New Start or continue with usual care only. Community-dwelling stroke survivors between 4 and 6 months post-stroke were invited to participate in the trial by post. Outcome measures were collected via post at 3, 6 and 9 months after recruitment. Recruitment and follow-up rates, delivery and uptake of the intervention, data collection feasibility (including postal outcome measures of health and disability, mental well-being at 3, 6, and 9 months post-recruitment) and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Ten stroke services were recruited. A total of 1127 stroke survivors were screened for participation, and 269 were registered (New Start, n = 145; usual care, n = 124). Retention was high with 239 (89%) stroke survivors being available for follow-up at 9 months, and high return rates of postal questionnaires were achieved (80.3% at 9 months). Intervention training was successfully delivered, and New Start was offered to 95.2% of trial participants in the intervention arm. Uptake was variable, however, ranging from 11.8 to 75.0%. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke service recruitment and longer-term stroke survivor postal recruitment and outcome data collection are feasible; however, refinement of intervention targeting and delivery is required prior to undertaking a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38920246. Registered 22 June 2016 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN38920246 ).

Risk and response adapted therapy following autologous stem cell transplant in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (RADAR (UK-MRA Myeloma XV Trial): study protocol for a phase II/III randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell malignancy that accounts for 1%-2% of newly diagnosed cancers.At diagnosis, approximately 20% of patients can be identified, using cytogenetics, to have inferior survival (high-risk). Additionally, standard-risk patients, with detectable disease (minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive) postautologus stem cell transplant (ASCT), fare worse compared with those who do not (MRD-negative). Research is required to determine whether a risk-adapted approach post-ASCT could further improve patient outcomes. METHODS: RADAR is a UK, multicentre, risk-adapted, response-guided, open-label, randomised controlled trial for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, using combinations of lenalidomide (R), cyclophosphamide (Cy), bortezomib (Bor), dexamethasone (D) and isatuximab (Isa).Participants receive RCyBorD(x4) induction therapy, followed by high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Post-ASCT, there are three pathways as follows:A phase III discontinuation design to assess de-escalating therapy in standard-risk MRD-negative patients. Participants receive 12 cycles of Isa maintenance. Those who remain MRD-negative are randomised to either continue or stop treatment.A phase II/III multiarm multistage design to test treatment strategies for treatment escalation in standard-risk MRD-positive patients. Participants are randomised to either; R, RBorD(x4) +R, RIsa, or RBorIsaD(x4) + RIsa.A phase II design to assess the activity of intensive treatment strategies in high-risk patients. Participants are randomised to RBorD(x4) +R or RBorIsaD(x4) + RIsa.1400 participants will be registered to allow for 500, 450 and 172 participants in each pathway. Randomisations are equal and treatment is given until disease progression or intolerance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the London-Central Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0238) and capacity and capability confirmed by the appropriate local research and development department for each participating centre prior to opening recruitment. Participant informed consent is required before trial registration and reconfirmed post-ASCT. Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN46841867.

Cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India.

Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique to treat abdominal conditions, has been shown to produce equivalent safety and efficacy with quicker return to normal function compared to open surgery. As such, it is widely accepted as a cost-effective alternative to open surgery for many abdominal conditions. However, access to laparoscopic surgery in rural North-East India is limited, in part due to limited equipment, unreliable supplies of CO2 gas, lack of surgical expertise and a shortage of anaesthetists. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India. A decision tree model was developed to compare costs, evaluated from a patient perspective, and health outcomes, disability adjusted life years (DALYs), associated with gasless laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy or open abdominal surgery in rural North-East India. Results indicate that MIS (performed by conventional or gasless laparoscopy) is less costly and produces better outcomes, fewer DALYs, than open surgery. These results were consistent even when gasless laparoscopy was analysed using least favourable data from the literature. Scaling up provision of MIS through increased access to gasless laparoscopy would reduce the cost burden to patients and increase DALYs averted. Based on a sample of 12 facilities in the North-East region, if scale up was achieved so that all essential surgeries amenable to laparoscopic surgery were performed as such (using conventional or gasless laparoscopy), 64% of DALYS related to these surgeries could be averted, equating to an additional 454.8 DALYs averted in these facilities alone. The results indicate that gasless laparoscopy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to open surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India and provides a possible bridge to the adoption of full laparoscopic services.

Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (FiTNEss (UK-MRA Myeloma XIV Trial)): a study protocol for a randomised phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow cancer, which predominantly affects older people. The incidence is increasing in an ageing population.Over the last 10 years, patient outcomes have improved. However, this is less apparent in older, less fit patients, who are ineligible for stem cell transplant. Research is required in this patient group, taking into account frailty and aiming to improve: treatment tolerability, clinical outcomes and quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma is a national, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing standard (reactive) and frailty-adjusted (adaptive) induction therapy delivery with ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD), and to compare maintenance lenalidomide to lenalidomide+ixazomib, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not suitable for stem cell transplant. Overall, 740 participants will be registered into the trial to allow 720 and 478 to be randomised at induction and maintenance, respectively.All participants will receive IRD induction with the dosing strategy randomised (1:1) at trial entry. Patients randomised to the standard, reactive arm will commence at the full dose followed by toxicity dependent reactive modifications. Patients randomised to the adaptive arm will commence at a dose level determined by their International Myeloma Working Group frailty score. Following 12 cycles of induction treatment, participants alive and progression free will undergo a second (double-blind) randomisation on a 1:1 basis to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide+placebo versus lenalidomide+ixazomib until disease progression or intolerance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North East-Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (19/NE/0125) and capacity and capability confirmed by local research and development departments for each participating centre prior to opening to recruitment. Participants are required to provide written informed consent prior to trial registration. Trial results will be disseminated by conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17973108, NCT03720041.

Ixazomib with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory myeloma: MUKeight phase II randomised controlled trial results.

The all-oral combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (ICD) is well tolerated and effective in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). We carried out MUKeight, a randomised, controlled, open, parallel group, multi-centre phase II trial in patients with relapsed MM after prior treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and a proteasome inhibitor (ISRCTN58227268), with the primary objective to test whether ICD has improved clinical activity compared to cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CD) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Between January 2016 and December 2018, 112 participants were randomised between ICD (n = 58) and CD (n = 54) in 33 UK centres. Patients had a median age of 70 years and had received a median of four prior lines of therapy. 74% were classed as frail. Median PFS in the ICD arm was 5.6 months, compared to 6.7 months with CD (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21, 80% CI 0.9-1.6, p = 0.3634). Response rates and overall survival were not significantly different between ICD and CD. Dose modifications or omissions, and serious adverse events (SAEs), occurred more often in the ICD arm. In summary, the addition of ixazomib to cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone did not improve outcomes in the comparatively frail patients enroled in the MUKeight trial.

What factors affect patients' ability to access healthcare? An overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: This overview aims to synthesise global evidence on factors affecting healthcare access, and variations across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) vs. high-income countries (HICs); to develop understanding of where barriers to healthcare access lie, and in what context, to inform tailored policies aimed at improving access to healthcare for all who need it. METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews guided by a published protocol was conducted. Medline, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Systematic Reviews databases were searched for published articles. Additional searches were conducted on the Gates Foundation, WHO and World Bank websites. Study characteristics and findings (barriers and facilitators to healthcare access) were documented and summarised. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using an adapted version of the AMSTAR 2 tool. RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were included, 23 presenting findings from LMICs and 35 presenting findings from HICs. While many barriers to healthcare access occur in HICs as well as LMICs, the way they are experienced is quite different. In HICs, there is a much greater emphasis on patient experience; as compared to the physical absence of care in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: As countries move towards universal healthcare access, evaluation methods that account for health system and wider cultural factors that impact capacity to provide care, healthcare finance systems and the socio-cultural environment of the setting are required. Consequently, methods employed in HICs may not be appropriate in LMICs due to the stark differences in these areas.

An intervention to increase physical activity in care home residents: results of a cluster-randomised, controlled feasibility trial (the REACH trial).

BACKGROUND: Care home (CH) residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Strategies to improve activity are required. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process and health economic evaluations. Twelve residential CHs in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised to the MoveMore intervention plus usual care (UC) (n = 5) or UC only (n = 7). PARTICIPANTS: Permanent residents aged ≥65 years. INTERVENTION: MoveMore: a whole home intervention involving all CH staff designed to encourage and support increase in movement of residents. OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENTS: Feasibility objectives relating to recruitment, intervention delivery, data collection and follow-up and safety concerns informed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial. Data collection at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months included: participants' physical function and mobility, perceived health, mood, quality of life, cognitive impairment questionnaires; accelerometry; safety data; intervention implementation. RESULTS: 300 residents were screened; 153 were registered (62 MoveMore; 91 UC). Average cluster size: MoveMore: 12.4 CHs; UC: 13.0 CHs. There were no CH/resident withdrawals. Forty (26.1%) participants were unavailable for follow-up: 28 died (12 MoveMore; 16 UC); 12 moved from the CH. Staff informant/proxy data collection for participants was >80%; data collection from participants was <75%; at 9 months, 65.6% of residents provided valid accelerometer data; two CHs fully, two partially and one failed to implement the intervention. There were no safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting CHs and residents was feasible. Intervention implementation and data collection methods need refinement before a definitive trial. There were no safety concerns.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS: Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS: Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in Hong Kong. METHODS: A within trial cost-utility analysis with the primary endpoint for the economic evaluation being the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and associated Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) over 14 weeks of treatment. A secondary cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken with the endpoint being change in pain as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were randomised to acupuncture or usual care. Acupuncture resulted in significant improvements in pain intensity (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.8 and -1.8, respectively), pain interference (8- and 14-week mean changes compared to usual care of -1.5 and -0.9, respectively) and indicators of quality of life and neurotoxicity-related symptoms. However, in the economic evaluation there was little difference in QALYs between the two arms (mean change 0.209 and 0.200 in the acupuncture and usual care arms, respectively). Also, costs yielded deterministic ICERs of HK$616,965.62, HK$824,083.44 and HK$540,727.56 per QALY gained from the health care provider perspective, the societal perspective and the patient perspective, respectively. These costs are significantly higher than the cost-effectiveness threshold of HK$180,450 that was used for the base case analysis. CONCLUSION: While acupuncture can improve symptoms and quality of life indicators related to CIPN, it is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for CIPN-related pain in health care systems with limited resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02553863 (ClinicalTrials.gov) post-results.

The MUK eight protocol: a randomised phase II trial of cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in combination with ixazomib, in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients who have relapsed after treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell tumour with approximately 5500 new cases in the UK each year. Ixazomib is a next generation inhibitor of the 20S proteasome and is thought to be an effective treatment for those who have relapsed from bortezomib. The combination of cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CD) is a recognised treatment option for patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have relapsed after treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide, whilst also often being combined with newer proteasome inhibitors. The most apparent combination for ixazomib is therefore with CD. METHODS: MUK eight is a randomised, controlled, open, parallel group, multi-centre phase II trial that will recruit patients with RRMM who have relapsed after treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and a proteasome inhibitor. The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate whether ixazomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (ICD) has improved clinical activity compared to CD in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives include comparing toxicity profiles and the activity and cost-effectiveness of both treatments. Since opening, the trial has been amended to allow all participants who experience disease progression (as per the IMWG criteria) on the CD arm to subsequently switch to receive ICD treatment, once progression has been confirmed with two clinical members of the Trial Management Group (TMG). This 'switch' phase of the study is exploratory and will assess second progression-free survival measured from randomisation to second disease progression (PFS2) and progression-free survival from the point of switching to second disease progression (PFS Switch) in participants who switch from CD to ICD treatment. DISCUSSION: Development of ixazomib offers the opportunity to further investigate the value of proteasome inhibition through oral administration in the treatment of RRMM. Previous studies investigating the safety and efficacy of ICD in patients with RRMM demonstrate a toxicity profile consistent with ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, whilst the combination showed possible activity in RRMM patients. Further investigation of the anti-tumour effect of this drug in RRMM patients is therefore warranted, especially since no trials comparing CD with ICD have been completed at present. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN58227268 . Registered on 26 August 2015.

What factors affect patients' access to healthcare? Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The importance of access to healthcare for all is internationally recognised as a global goal, high on the global agenda. Yet inequalities in health exist within and between countries which are exacerbated by inequalities in access to healthcare. In order to address these inequalities, we need to better understand what drives them. While there exists a wealth of research on access to healthcare in different countries and contexts, and for different patient groups, to date no attempt has been made to bring this evidence together through a global lens. This study aims to address that gap by bringing together evidence of what factors affect patients' access to healthcare and exploring how those factors vary in different countries and contexts around the world. METHODS: An overview of reviews will be conducted using a comprehensive search strategy to search four databases: Medline, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Systematic Reviews. Additional searches will be conducted on the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and World Bank websites. Titles and abstracts will be screened against the eligibility criteria and full-text articles will be obtained for all records that meet the inclusion criteria or where there is uncertainty around eligibility. A data extraction table will be developed during the review process and will be piloted and refined before full data extraction commences. Methodological quality/risk of bias will be assessed for each included study using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The quality assessment will be used to inform the narrative synthesis, but a low-quality score will not necessarily lead to study exclusion. DISCUSSION: Factors affecting patients' ability to access healthcare will be identified and analysed according to different country and context characteristics to shed light on the importance of different factors in different settings. Results will be interpreted accounting for the usual challenges associated with conducting such reviews. The results may guide future research in this area and contribute to priority setting for development initiatives aimed at ensuring equitable access to healthcare for all. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019144775.

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent, serious infections. Around 5500 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed per year in the UK, and a quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. We aimed to assess whether patients newly diagnosed with myeloma benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection, and to investigate the effect on antibiotic-resistant organism carriage and health care-associated infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. METHODS: TEAMM was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 21 years and older with newly diagnosed myeloma in 93 UK hospitals. All enrolled patients were within 14 days of starting active myeloma treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to levofloxacin or placebo with a computerised minimisation algorithm. Allocation was stratified by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and intention to proceed to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. All investigators, patients, laboratory, and trial co-ordination staff were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were given 500 mg of levofloxacin (two 250 mg tablets), orally once daily for 12 weeks, or placebo tablets (two tablets, orally once daily for 12 weeks), with dose reduction according to estimated glomerular filtration rate every 4 weeks. Follow-up visits occurred every 4 weeks up to week 16, and at 1 year. The primary outcome was time to first febrile episode or death from all causes within the first 12 weeks of trial treatment. All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN51731976, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-000366-35. FINDINGS: Between Aug 15, 2012, and April 29, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 977 patients to receive levofloxacin prophylaxis (489 patients) or placebo (488 patients). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 8-13). 95 (19%) first febrile episodes or deaths occurred in 489 patients in the levofloxacin group versus 134 (27%) in 488 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·86; p=0·0018. 597 serious adverse events were reported up to 16 weeks from the start of trial treatment (308 [52%] of which were in the levofloxacin group and 289 [48%] of which were in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were similar between the two groups except for five episodes (1%) of mostly reversible tendonitis in the levofloxacin group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment during the first 12 weeks of therapy significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths compared with placebo without increasing health care-associated infections. These results suggest that prophylactic levofloxacin could be used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing anti-myeloma therapy. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Prophylactic levofloxacin to prevent infections in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma: the TEAMM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as Clostridium difficile. There is a need to assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibacterial prophylaxis against any risks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio. SETTING: A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond. RESULTS: In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, n = 489; placebo, n = 488). A total of 134 (27%) events (febrile episodes, n = 119; deaths, n = 15) occurred in the placebo arm and 95 (19%) events (febrile episodes, n = 91; deaths, n = 4) occurred in the levofloxacin arm; the hazard ratio for time to first event (febrile episode or death) within the first 12 weeks was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.002). Levofloxacin also reduced other infections (144 infections from 116 patients) compared with placebo (179 infections from 133 patients; p-trend of 0.06). There was no difference in new acquisitions of C. difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Gram-negative organisms when assessed up to 16 weeks. Levofloxacin produced slightly higher quality-adjusted life-year gains over 16 weeks, but had associated higher costs for health resource use. With a median follow-up of 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.94). LIMITATIONS: Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Myeloma is a type of cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow, called plasma cells, which are part of the immune system. Because myeloma affects the immune system, people who have it are at greater risk of picking up infections. This risk is higher at the start of antimyeloma therapy when the myeloma is active. WHAT DID THE STUDY DO?: The trial looked to see if the risk of getting an infection can be reduced, rather than waiting to see if an infection developed and then treating it. An antibiotic already used all over the world, called levofloxacin was tested. Half of the patients (n = 489) took levofloxacin for 12 weeks and the other half (n = 488) were given a dummy tablet (placebo). The aim was to see if taking levofloxacin at the start of antimyeloma therapy reduced the risk of getting an infection. Alongside this, we evaluated three important groups of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to see whether or not the use of preventative levofloxacin increased the number of these resistant bacteria living in the body. In addition, the overall survival, economic impacts and the impact of using preventative antibiotics on patients' quality of life and response to antimyeloma treatment were evaluated. WHAT DID THE STUDY FIND?: During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis of myeloma, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced the number of febrile episodes and deaths [134 (febrile episodes alone, n = 112; febrile episodes plus death, n = 7; deaths alone, n = 15) out of 488 (27%) placebo patients vs. 95 (febrile episodes alone, n = 87; febrile episodes plus death, n = 4; deaths alone, n = 4) out of 489 (19%) levofloxacin patients; p = 0.002] without increasing antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Cost-Effectiveness of Docetaxel and Paclitaxel for Adjuvant Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: Adaptation of a Model-Based Economic Evaluation From the United Kingdom to South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: Transferability of economic evaluations to low- and middle-income countries through adaptation of models is important; however, several methodological and practical challenges remain. Given its significant costs and the quality-of-life burden to patients, adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer was identified as a priority intervention by the South African National Department of Health. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens (taxanes) compared with standard (non-taxane) treatments. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken based on a UK 6-health-state Markov model adapted for South Africa using the Mullins checklist. The analysis assumed a 35-year time horizon. The model was populated with clinical effectiveness data (hazard ratios, recurrence rates, and adverse events) using direct comparisons from clinical trials. Resource use patterns and unit costs for estimating cost parameters (drugs, diagnostics, consumables, personnel) were obtained from South Africa. Uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost per patient for the docetaxel regimen compared with standard treatment was R6774. The incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.24, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R28430 per QALY. The cost of the paclitaxel regimen compared with standard treatment was estimated as -R578 and -R1512, producing an additional 0.03 and 0.025 QALYs, based on 2 trials. Paclitaxel, therefore, appears to be a dominant intervention. The base case results were robust to all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the adapted model, docetaxel and paclitaxel are predicted to be cost-effective as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer in South Africa.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multi-dimensional intervention to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for children with upper respiratory tract infections in China.

BACKGROUND: We developed a multifaceted intervention to reduce antibiotic prescription rate for children with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) among primary care doctors in township hospitals in China. The intervention achieved a 29% (95% CI 16-42) absolute risk reduction in antibiotic prescribing. This study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of our intervention at reducing antibiotic prescribing in rural primary care facilities as measured by the intervention's effect on the antibiotic prescription rates for childhood URTIs. METHODS: We took a healthcare provider perspective, measuring costs of consultation (time cost of doctor), prescription monitoring process and peer-review meetings (time cost of participants) and medication costs. Costs on provider side were collected through a bespoke questionnaire from all 25 township hospitals in December 2016, while medication costs were collected prospectively in the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated by dividing the mean difference in cost of the two trial arms by the mean difference in antibiotic prescribing rate. RESULTS: This showed an incremental cost of $0.03 per percentage point reduction in antibiotic prescribing. In addition to this incremental cost, the cost of implementing the intervention, including training and materials delivered by township hospitals, was $390.65 (SD $145.68) per healthcare facility. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a multifaceted intervention programme, when embedded into routine practice, is very cost-effective at reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care facilities and has the potential of scale up in similar resource limited settings.

Alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept or rituximab following failure of initial TNFi in rheumatoid arthritis: the SWITCH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the most common autoimmune disease in the UK, is a chronic systemic inflammatory arthritis that affects 0.8% of the UK population. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not an alternative class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are comparable to rituximab in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with RA in whom initial tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD and methotrexate (MTX) therapy failed because of inefficacy. DESIGN: Multicentre, Phase III, open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative TNFi and abatacept with that of rituximab (and background MTX therapy). Eligible consenting patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio using minimisation incorporating a random element. Minimisation factors were centre, disease duration, non-response category and seropositive/seronegative status. SETTING: UK outpatient rheumatology departments. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who were diagnosed with RA and were receiving MTX, but had not responded to two or more conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapies and had shown an inadequate treatment response to a first TNFi. INTERVENTIONS: Alternative TNFi, abatacept or rituximab (and continued background MTX). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was absolute reduction in the Disease Activity Score of 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures over 48 weeks were additional measures of disease activity, quality of life, cost-effectiveness, radiographic measures, safety and toxicity. LIMITATIONS: Owing to third-party contractual issues, commissioning challenges delaying centre set-up and thus slower than expected recruitment, the funders terminated the trial early. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and December 2014, 149 patients in 35 centres were registered, of whom 122 were randomised to treatment (alternative TNFi, n = 41; abatacept, n = 41; rituximab, n = 40). The numbers, as specified, were analysed in each group [in line with the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle]. Comparing alternative TNFi with rituximab, the difference in mean reduction in DAS28 at 24 weeks post randomisation was 0.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to 1.05] in the ITT patient population and -0.58 (95% CI -1.72 to 0.55) in the per protocol (PP) population. Corresponding results for the abatacept and rituximab comparison were 0.04 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.79) in the ITT population and -0.15 (95% CI -1.27 to 0.98) in the PP population. General improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life and the patients' general health was apparent over time, with no notable differences between treatment groups. There was a marked initial improvement in the patients' global assessment of pain and arthritis at 12 weeks across all three treatment groups. Switching to alternative TNFi may be cost-effective compared with rituximab [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £5332.02 per quality-adjusted life-year gained]; however, switching to abatacept compared with switching to alternative TNFi is unlikely to be cost-effective (ICER £253,967.96), but there was substantial uncertainty in the decisions. The value of information analysis indicated that further research would be highly valuable to the NHS. Ten serious adverse events in nine patients were reported; none were suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions. Two patients died and 10 experienced toxicity. FUTURE WORK: The results will add to the randomised evidence base and could be included in future meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: How to manage first-line TNFi treatment failures remains unresolved. Had the trial recruited to target, more credible evidence on whether or not either of the interventions were non-inferior to rituximab may have been provided, although this remains speculative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89222125 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295151. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis in low- and middle-income countries: illustrative example of rotavirus vaccination in Ethiopia.

Reducing health inequality is a major policy concern for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on the path to universal health coverage. However, health inequality impacts are rarely quantified in cost-effectiveness analyses of health programmes. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is a method developed to analyse the expected social distributions of costs and health benefits, and the potential trade-offs that may exist between maximising total health and reducing health inequality. This is the first paper to show how DCEA can be applied in LMICs. Using the introduction of rotavirus vaccination in Ethiopia as an illustrative example, we analyse a hypothetical re-designed vaccination programme, which invests additional resources into vaccine delivery in rural areas, and compare this with the standard programme currently implemented in Ethiopia. We show that the re-designed programme has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$69 per health-adjusted life year (HALY) compared with the standard programme. This is potentially cost-ineffective when compared with current estimates of health opportunity cost in Ethiopia. However, rural populations are typically less wealthy than urban populations and experience poorer lifetime health. Prioritising such populations can thus be seen as being equitable. We analyse the trade-off between cost-effectiveness and equity using the Atkinson inequality aversion parameter, ε, representing the decision maker's strength of concern for reducing health inequality. We find that the more equitable programme would be considered worthwhile by a decision maker whose inequality concern is greater than ε = 5.66, which at current levels of health inequality in Ethiopia implies that health gains are weighted at least 3.86 times more highly in the poorest compared with the richest wealth quintile group. We explore the sensitivity of this conclusion to a range of assumptions and cost-per-HALY threshold values, to illustrate how DCEA can inform the thinking of decision makers and stakeholders about health equity trade-offs.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.

This articles serves as a guide to using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to address health equity concerns. We first introduce the "equity impact plane," a tool for considering trade-offs between improving total health-the objective underpinning conventional CEA-and equity objectives, such as reducing social inequality in health or prioritizing the severely ill. Improving total health may clash with reducing social inequality in health, for example, when effective delivery of services to disadvantaged communities requires additional costs. Who gains and who loses from a cost-increasing health program depends on differences among people in terms of health risks, uptake, quality, adherence, capacity to benefit, and-crucially-who bears the opportunity costs of diverting scarce resources from other uses. We describe two main ways of using CEA to address health equity concerns: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables, such as socioeconomic status, location, ethnicity, sex, and severity of illness; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives. One way to analyze equity trade-offs is to count the cost of fairer but less cost-effective options in terms of health forgone. Another method is to explore how much concern for equity is required to choose fairer but less cost-effective options using equity weights or parameters. We hope this article will help the health technology assessment community navigate the practical options now available for conducting equity-informative CEA that gives policymakers a better understanding of equity impacts and trade-offs.