Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations.

BACKGROUND: Resource-use measurement is integral for assessing cost-effectiveness within trial-based economic evaluations. Methods for gathering resource-use data from participants are not well developed, with questionnaires typically produced for each trial and rarely validated. The healthcare module of a generic, modular resource-use measure, designed for collecting self-report resource-utilisation data, has recently been developed in the UK. The objective of this research is to identify and prioritise items for new, bolt-on modules, covering informal care, social care and personal expenses incurred due to health and care needs. METHODS: Identification and prioritisation, conducted between April and December 2021, involved a rapid review of questionnaires included in the Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement and economic evaluations published from 2011 to 2021 to identify candidate items, an online survey of UK-based social care professionals to identify omitted social care items and focus groups with UK-based health economists and UK-based people who access social care services either for themselves or as carers to prioritise items. RESULTS: The review identified 203 items. Over half of the 24 survey respondents reported no missing items. Five academic health economists and four people who access social care services participated in focus groups. Feedback shaped the social and informal care modules and indicated that no specific personal expenses were essential to collect in all trials. Aids/adaptations were highlighted as costly personal expenses when relevant; therefore, the personal expenses module was narrowed to aids/adaptations only. CONCLUSION: Draft informal care, social care and aids/adaptations modules were developed, ready for further testing.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. METHODS: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. DISCUSSION: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604 . Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021.

Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): piloting with patients.

BACKGROUND: Bespoke self-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are commonly developed or adapted for each new randomised controlled trial. Consequently, RUMs lack standardisation and validation is rarely conducted. A new generic RUM, ModRUM, has been developed using a rigorous process, including consultation with health economists and patients. ModRUM includes a concise core healthcare module, designed to be included in all trials, and depth-adding questions, which can replace or be added to core questions as needed. Modules covering other sectors are under development. The aim of this study was to test the acceptability, feasibility, and criterion and construct validity of the healthcare module of ModRUM. METHODS: Patients who had a recent appointment at their GP practice were invited to complete ModRUM (core module or core module with depth questions), a characteristics form and the EQ-5D-5L. Acceptability was assessed via response rates and questionnaire completion time. Feasibility was assessed by reviewing issues observed in participants' responses and question completion rates. Construct validity was tested via hypothesis testing and known-group analyses, using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a generalised linear model. Criterion validity was tested by comparing ModRUM results with primary care medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (pc) were estimated. RESULTS: One hundred patients participated from five GP practices in the South-West of England. Acceptability was higher for the core module (20% versus 10% response rate). Question completion rates were high across both versions (> 90%). Some support was observed for construct validity, with results suggesting that healthcare costs differ dependent on the number of long-term conditions (p < 0.05) and are negatively associated with health-related quality of life (p < 0.01). Sensitivity was high for all questions (> 0.83), while specificity varied (0.33-0.88). There was a good level of agreement for GP contacts and costs, and prescribed medication costs (pc > 0.6). CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary evidence of the acceptability, feasibility, and criterion and construct validity of ModRUM. Further testing is required within trials and with groups that were less well represented in this study.

Impact of PSA testing on secondary care costs in England and Wales: estimates from the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

BACKGROUND: Screening men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. We aimed to estimate the likely budgetary impact on secondary care in England and Wales to inform screening decision makers. METHODS: The Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer study (CAP) compared a single invitation to men aged 50-69 for a PSA test with usual care (no screening). Routinely collected hospital care data were obtained for all men in CAP, and NHS reference costs were mapped to each event via Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes. Secondary-care costs per man per year were calculated, and cost differences (and population-level estimates) between arms were derived annually for the first five years following randomisation. RESULTS: In the first year post-randomisation, secondary-care costs averaged across all men (irrespective of a prostate cancer diagnosis) in the intervention arm (n = 189279) were £44.80 (95% confidence interval: £18.30-£71.30) higher than for men in the control arm (n = 219357). Extrapolated to a population level, the introduction of a single PSA screening invitation could lead to additional secondary care costs of £314 million. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a single PSA screening test for men aged 50-69 across England and Wales could lead to very high initial secondary-care costs.

Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM.

BACKGROUND: Measuring objective resource-use quantities is important for generating valid cost estimates in economic evaluations. In the absence of acknowledged guidelines, measurement methods are often chosen based on practicality rather than methodological evidence. Furthermore, few resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments focus on the measurement of resource use in multiple societal sectors and their development process is rarely described. Thorn and colleagues proposed a stepwise approach to the development of RUM instruments, which has been used for developing cost questionnaires for specific trials. However, it remains unclear how this approach can be translated into practice and whether it is applicable to the development of generic self-reported RUM instruments and instruments measuring resource use in multiple sectors. This study provides a detailed description of the practical application of this stepwise approach to the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument developed within the ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) project. METHODS: For the development of the PECUNIA RUM, the methodological approach was based on best practice guidelines. The process included six steps, including the definition of the instrument attributes, identification of cost-driving elements in each sector, review of methodological literature and development of a harmonized cross-sectorial approach, development of questionnaire modules and their subsequent harmonization. RESULTS: The selected development approach was, overall, applicable to the development of the PECUNIA RUM. However, due to the complexity of the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument, additional steps such as establishing a uniform methodological basis, harmonization of questionnaire modules and involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, sector-specific experts, health economists) were needed. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that transparently describes the development process of a generic multi-sectoral RUM instrument in health economics and provides insights into the methodological aspects and overall validity of its development process.

Commentary/Response: Economic evidence should be routinely collected and reported for studies of intervention effectiveness in mental health. A commentary on Vartiainen et al. (2022).

Anxiety and related disorders are increasingly widespread amongst children and adolescents. Preventing mental health disorders from developing has the potential to realise long-term benefits for children and adolescents. In their paper, 'Economic evidence of preventive interventions for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents-a systematic review', Vartiainen et al. conducted a systematic review to examine economic evidence of interventions for the primary prevention of anxiety disorders in children and adolescents, under 18 years of age. Five articles were eligible for inclusion in the review, of which two were model-based economic evaluations and three conducted alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All five papers used either a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) or cost-utility analysis (CUA) as their main analysis. Vartiainen et al. concluded that, due to the small number of studies and relatively small sample sizes, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of anxiety prevention interventions is weak. In this commentary, the challenges of conducting economic evaluations for prevention interventions are briefly outlined and Vartiainen et al.'s findings are discussed in the context of two further reviews of economic studies, published in 2021. The first focuses on the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people and the second takes a broader perspective and also includes interventions for mental health promotion. Both additional reviews note the small number of published economic evaluations, and all three reviews are united in their call for economic evaluations to be conducted alongside all future mental health prevention intervention trials.

Brief intervention to reduce fatigue impact in patients with inflammatory arthritis: design and outcomes of a single-arm feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with inflammatory arthritis report that fatigue is challenging to manage. We developed a manualised, one-to-one, cognitive-behavioural intervention, delivered by rheumatology health professionals (RHPs). The Fatigue - Reducing its Effects through individualised support Episodes in Inflammatory Arthritis (FREE-IA) study tested the feasibility of RHP training, intervention delivery and outcome collection ahead of a potential trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In this single-arm feasibility study, eligible patients were ≥18 years, had a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of an inflammatory arthritis and scored ≥6/10 on the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue (BRAF) Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Fatigue Effect. Following training, RHPs delivered two to four sessions to participants. Baseline data were collected before the first session (T0) and outcomes at 6 weeks (T1) and 6 months (T2). The proposed primary outcome was fatigue impact (BRAF NRS Fatigue Effect). Secondary outcomes included fatigue severity and coping, disease impact and disability, and measures of therapeutic mechanism (self-efficacy and confidence to manage health). RESULTS: Eight RHPs at five hospitals delivered 113 sessions to 46 participants. Of a potential 138 primary and secondary outcome responses at T0, T1 and T2, there were 13 (9.4%) and 27 (19.6%) missing primary and secondary outcome responses, respectively. Results indicated improvements in all measures except disability, at either T1 or T2, or both. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed it was feasible to deliver the intervention, including training RHPs, and recruit and follow-up participants with high retention. While there was no control group, observed within-group improvements suggest potential promise of the intervention and support for a definitive trial to test effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Group-Based Outpatient Physical Therapy After Total Knee Replacement: Results From the Economic Evaluation Alongside the ARENA Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a group-based outpatient physical therapy intervention delivered 6 weeks after primary total knee replacement (TKR) compared with usual care, alongside the Activity-Orientated Rehabilitation Following Knee Arthroplasty (ARENA) multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: The economic analyses were performed from the perspective of the health and social care payer. We collected resource use for health and social care and productivity losses and patient outcomes for 12 months after surgery to derive costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and incremental net monetary benefit statistics (INMBs) for a society willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, with sensitivity analyses to model specification and perspective. RESULTS: The cost of the ARENA physical therapy classes was mean ± SD £179 ± 39 per patient. Treatment in the year following surgery cost was, on average, £1,739 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -£742, £4,221) per patient in the intervention group (n = 89), which was an additional £346 (95% CI £38, £653) per patient compared with usual care (n = 91) (£1,393 [95% CI -£780, £3,568]). QALY benefits were 0.0506 higher (95% CI 0.009, 0.09) in the intervention group, corresponding to an additional 19 days in "perfect health." The ICER for the intervention group was £6,842 per QALY gained, and the INMB was £665 (95% CI £139, £1,191), with a 92% probability of being cost-effective, and no less than 73% in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSION: The addition of group-based outpatient physical therapy classes to usual care improves quality of life and is a cost-effective treatment option following TKR for a society WTP threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Randomised controlled trial to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of expectant management versus preoperative imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones (The Sunflower Study): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10378861.

Aspects and Challenges of Resource Use Measurement in Health Economics: Towards a Comprehensive Measurement Framework.

BACKGROUND: While the methods for conducting health economics research in general are improving, current guidelines provide limited guidance regarding resource use measurement (RUM). Consequently, a variety of methods exists, yet there is no overview of aspects to consider when deciding on the most appropriate RUM methodology. Therefore, this study aims to (1) identify and categorize existing knowledge regarding aspects of RUM, and (2) develop a framework that provides a comprehensive overview of methodological aspects regarding RUM. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified by enrolling a search string in six databases and handsearching the DIRUM database. Included articles were descriptively reviewed and served as input for a comprehensive framework. Health economics experts were involved during the process to establish the framework's face validity. RESULTS: Forty articles were included in the scoping review. The RUM framework consists of four methodological RUM domains: 'Whom to measure', addressing whom to ask and whom to measure; 'How to measure', addressing the different approaches of measurement; 'How often to measure', addressing recall period and measurement patterns; and 'Additional considerations', which covers additional aspects that are essential for further refining the methodologies for measurement. Evidence retrieved from the scoping review was categorized according to these domains. CONCLUSION: This study clustered the aspects of RUM methodology in health economics into a comprehensive framework. The results may guide health economists in their decision making regarding the selection of appropriate RUM methods and developing instruments for RUM. Furthermore, policy makers may use these findings to review study results from an evidence-based perspective.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): cognitive interviews with patients.

BACKGROUND: Self-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are often used to collect healthcare use data from participants in healthcare studies. However, RUMs are typically adapted from existing measures on a study-by-study basis, resulting in a lack of standardisation which limits comparability across studies. Psychometric testing of RUMs is rarely conducted. This paper reports on cognitive interviews with patients to test the content validity and acceptability of a new RUM (ModRUM). ModRUM is a brief, generic RUM with a core module on healthcare use and questions/modules to increase depth and breadth. METHODS: A purposeful sampling strategy with maximum variation was used to recruit patients from primary care to participate in "think-aloud" interviews with retrospective probing. Participants verbalised their thought processes as they completed ModRUM, which allowed errors (issues with completion) to be identified. The interviewer asked follow-up and probing questions to investigate errors, clarity and acceptability. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Research team members independently scored transcripts to identify errors in comprehension, recall, judgement and response. Members met to agree on final scores. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively using techniques of constant comparison, to identify common themes and ideas for improvement. Data collection and analysis were performed concurrently and in rounds. RESULTS: Twenty participants were interviewed between December 2019 and March 2020. Interviews were conducted in three rounds, with revisions made iteratively and in response to interview findings. Seven participants completed the core module and 13 completed the core module plus depth questions. Of 71 issues, 28 were in comprehension, 14 in retrieval, 10 in judgement, 18 in response and 1 uncategorised. Most issues (21 issues by 2 participants) were due to participants including family healthcare use. Other issues included using incorrect recall periods (5 issues) and overlooking questions leading to missing responses (9 issues). Common participant suggestions included highlighting important details and providing additional definition or examples for some terms. The length, content and layout were acceptable to most participants. CONCLUSIONS: A generic RUM is needed to increase study comparability. RUM development requires thorough testing to demonstrate and enhance validity. Cognitive interviewing has demonstrated the acceptability and content validity of ModRUM.

The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years' median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. RESULTS: Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man's lifetime. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. SETTING: General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. INTERVENTION: The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost-consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. RESULTS: Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (-0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£-739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN06180958.

Group cognitive-behavioural programme to reduce the impact of rheumatoid arthritis fatigue: the RAFT RCT with economic and qualitative evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence for the clinical effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by clinical psychologists, but few rheumatology units have psychologists. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group CBT programme for RA fatigue [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive-behavioural (CB) approaches], delivered by the rheumatology team in addition to usual care (intervention), with usual care alone (control); and to evaluate tutors' experiences of the RAFT programme. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. Central trials unit computerised randomisation in four consecutive cohorts within each of the seven centres. A nested qualitative evaluation was undertaken. SETTING: Seven hospital rheumatology units in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with RA and fatigue severity of ≥ 6 [out of 10, as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS)] who had no recent changes in major RA medication/glucocorticoids. INTERVENTIONS: RAFT - group CBT programme delivered by rheumatology tutor pairs (nurses/occupational therapists). Usual care - brief discussion of a RA fatigue self-management booklet with the research nurse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - fatigue impact (as measured by the BRAF-NRS) at 26 weeks. Secondary - fatigue severity/coping (as measured by the BRAF-NRS); broader fatigue impact [as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ)]; self-reported clinical status; quality of life; mood; self-efficacy; and satisfaction. All data were collected at weeks 0, 6, 26, 52, 78 and 104. In addition, fatigue data were collected at weeks 10 and 18. The intention-to-treat analysis conducted was blind to treatment allocation, and adjusted for baseline scores and centre. Cost-effectiveness was explored through the intervention and RA-related health and social care costs, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). Tutor and focus group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 308 out of 333 patients completed 26 weeks (RAFT, n/N = 156/175; control, n/N = 152/158). At 26 weeks, the mean BRAF-NRS impact was reduced for the RAFT programme (-1.36 units; p < 0.001) and the control interventions (-0.88 units; p < 0.004). Regression analysis showed a difference between treatment arms in favour of the RAFT programme [adjusted mean difference -0.59 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to -0.06 units; p = 0.03, effect size 0.36], and this was sustained over 2 years (-0.49 units, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.14 units; p = 0.01). At 26 weeks, further fatigue differences favoured the RAFT programme (BRAF-MDQ fatigue impact: adjusted mean difference -3.42 units, 95% CI -6.44 to - 0.39 units, p = 0.03; living with fatigue: adjusted mean difference -1.19 units, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21 units, p = 0.02; and emotional fatigue: adjusted mean difference -0.91 units, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.23 units, p = 0.01), and these fatigue differences were sustained over 2 years. Self-efficacy favoured the RAFT programme at 26 weeks (Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale: adjusted mean difference 3.05 units, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.6 units; p = 0.02), as did BRAF-NRS coping over 2 years (adjusted mean difference 0.42 units, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77 units; p = 0.02). Fatigue severity and other clinical outcomes were not different between trial arms and no harms were reported. Satisfaction with the RAFT programme was high, with 89% of patients scoring ≥ 8 out of 10, compared with 54% of patients in the control arm rating the booklet (p < 0.0001); and 96% of patients and 68% of patients recommending the RAFT programme and the booklet, respectively, to others (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arms for total societal costs including the RAFT programme training and delivery (mean difference £434, 95% CI -£389 to £1258), nor QALYs gained (mean difference 0.008, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.023). The probability of the RAFT programme being cost-effective was 28-35% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Tutors felt that the RAFT programme's CB approaches challenged their usual problem-solving style, helped patients make life changes and improved tutors' wider clinical practice. LIMITATIONS: Primary outcome data were missing for 25 patients; the EQ-5D-5L might not capture fatigue change; and 30% of the 2-year economic data were missing. CONCLUSIONS: The RAFT programme improves RA fatigue impact beyond usual care alone; this was sustained for 2 years with high patient satisfaction, enhanced team skills and no harms. The RAFT programme is < 50% likely to be cost-effective; however, NHS costs were similar between treatment arms. FUTURE WORK: Given the paucity of RA fatigue interventions, rheumatology teams might investigate the pragmatic implementation of the RAFT programme, which is low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52709998. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a lifelong inflammatory condition affecting multiple joints, with fatigue as a major consequence. Cognitive­behavioural therapy (CBT) helps patients work out links between symptoms, behaviours and thoughts driving those behaviours (e.g. why someone pushes on when exhausted), and understanding these links helps patients make changes. A CBT programme for groups of RA patients, facilitated by a psychologist, reduces fatigue impact. However, few rheumatology teams have psychologists. The study tested whether or not rheumatology nurses and occupational therapists (OTs) could facilitate the programme [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive­behavioural (CB) approaches] after brief training. The study compared the RAFT programme with usual care for RA fatigue (i.e. a short discussion of an arthritis fatigue booklet). All 333 patients received usual care, and then half of the patients were allocated (by chance) to also attend the seven-session RAFT programme. The study compared the RAFT programme with usual care for effects on fatigue, quality of life, cost and value for money. In addition, the rheumatology nurse and OT RAFT tutors were interviewed for their views on the RAFT programme. The study found that patients' fatigue impact was reduced by both the RAFT programme and usual care at 6 months and 2 years, but patients undertaking the RAFT programme improved significantly more than those receiving usual care alone. Differences were seen for improvements in fatigue impact, fatigue coping, emotional fatigue and living with fatigue. Patients were very satisfied with the RAFT programme and attended most of the sessions. The study found no significant difference between the NHS costs of the RAFT programme and usual care. Neither the RAFT programme nor usual care changed quality of life; therefore, standard value-for-money tests showed no difference between them. Tutors found that the CB questioning approach of the RAFT programme was different from their usual problem-solving style, but helped patients make life changes, and the new CB skills improved tutors' wider clinical practice. In conclusion, the trial has shown that the RAFT programme has a small to medium effect on reducing fatigue impact in patients with RA and is a potentially low-cost intervention that can be delivered by rheumatology nurses and OTs rather than a psychologist.

Reducing arthritis fatigue impact: two-year randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural approaches by rheumatology teams (RAFT).

OBJECTIVES: To see if a group course delivered by rheumatology teams using cognitive-behavioural approaches, plus usual care, reduced RA fatigue impact more than usual care alone. METHODS: Multicentre, 2-year randomised controlled trial in RA adults (fatigue severity>6/10, no recent major medication changes). RAFT (Reducing Arthritis Fatigue: clinical Teams using CB approaches) comprises seven sessions, codelivered by pairs of trained rheumatology occupational therapists/nurses. Usual care was Arthritis Research UK fatigue booklet. Primary 26-week outcome fatigue impact (Bristol RA Fatigue Effect Numerical Rating Scale, BRAF-NRS 0-10). Intention-to-treat regression analysis adjusted for baseline scores and centre. RESULTS: 308/333 randomised patients completed 26 week data (156/175 RAFT, 152/158 Control). Mean baseline variables were similar. At 26 weeks, the adjusted difference between arms for fatigue impact change favoured RAFT (BRAF-NRS Effect -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06), BRAF Multidimensional Questionnaire (MDQ) Total -3.42 (95% CI -6.44 to -0.39), Living with Fatigue -1.19 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.21), Emotional Fatigue -0.91 (95% CI -1.58 to -0.23); RA Self-Efficacy (RASE, +3.05, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.66) (14 secondary outcomes unchanged). Effects persisted at 2 years: BRAF-NRS Effect -0.49 (95% CI -0.83 to -0.14), BRAF MDQ Total -2.98 (95% CI -5.39 to -0.57), Living with Fatigue -0.93 (95% CI -1.75 to -0.10), Emotional Fatigue -0.90 (95% CI -1.44, to -0.37); BRAF-NRS Coping +0.42 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) (relevance of fatigue impact improvement uncertain). RAFT satisfaction: 89% scored > 8/10 vs 54% controls rating usual care booklet (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Multiple RA fatigue impacts can be improved for 2 years by rheumatology teams delivering a group programme using cognitive behavioural approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52709998.

Self-reported and routinely collected electronic healthcare resource-use data for trial-based economic evaluations: the current state of play in England and considerations for the future.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are generally regarded as the "gold standard" for providing quantifiable evidence around the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new healthcare technologies. In order to perform the economic evaluations associated with RCTs, there is a need for accessible and good quality resource-use data; for the purpose of discussion here, data that best reflect the care received. Traditionally, researchers have developed questionnaires for resource-use data collection. However, the evolution of routinely collected electronic data within care services provides new opportunities for collecting data without burdening patients or caregivers (e.g. clinicians). This paper describes the potential strengths and limitations of each data collection method and then discusses aspects for consideration before choosing which method to use. MAIN TEXT: We describe electronic data sources (large observational datasets, commissioning data, and raw data extraction) that may be suitable data sources for informing clinical trials and the current status of self-reported instruments for measuring resource-use. We assess the methodological risks and benefits, and compare the two methodologies. We focus on healthcare resource-use; however, many of the considerations have relevance to clinical questions. Patient self-report forms a pragmatic and cheap method that is largely under the control of the researcher. However, there are known issues with the validity of the data collected, loss to follow-up may be high, and questionnaires suffer from missing data. Routinely collected electronic data may be more accurate and more practical if large numbers of patients are involved. However, datasets often incur a cost and researchers are bound by the time for data approval and extraction by the data holders. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the issues associated with electronic datasets, self-reported methods may currently be the preferred option. However, electronic hospital data are relatively more accessible, informative, standardised, and reliable. Therefore in trials where secondary care constitutes a major driver of patient care, detailed electronic data may be considered superior to self-reported methods; with the caveat of requiring data sharing agreements with third party providers and potentially time-consuming extraction periods. Self-reported methods will still be required when a 'societal' perspective (e.g. quantifying informal care) is desirable for the intended analysis.

Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

BACKGROUND: Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden. OBJECTIVES: To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective. METHODS: Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set. RESULTS: Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.