RESUMEN
Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus a standard wool and crepe bandage following total knee arthroplasty, using patient-level data from the Knee Replacement Bandage Study (KReBS). Methods: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside KReBS, a pragmatic, two-arm, open label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Overall, 2,330 participants scheduled for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomized to either a two-layer compression bandage or a standard wool and crepe bandage. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the UK NHS perspective, and health outcomes were reported as QALYs based on participants' EuroQol five-dimesion five-level questionnaire responses. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses included a complete case analysis and testing of costing assumptions, with a secondary analysis exploring the inclusion of productivity losses. Results: The base case analysis found participants in the compression bandage group accrued marginally fewer QALYs, on average, compared with those in the standard bandage group (reduction of 0.0050 QALYs (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0051 to -0.0049)), and accumulated additional mean costs (incremental cost of £52.68 per participant (95% CI 50.56 to 54.80)). Findings remained robust to assumptions tested in sensitivity analyses, although considerable uncertainty surrounded the outcome estimates. Conclusion: Use of a two-layer compression bandage is marginally less effective in terms of health-related quality of life, and more expensive when compared with a standard bandage following TKA, so therefore is unlikely to provide a cost-effective option.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Ideally all participants in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) should fully receive their allocated intervention; however, this rarely occurs in practice. Intervention adherence affects Type II error so influences the interpretation of trial results and subsequent implementation. We aimed to describe current practice in the definition, measurement, and reporting of intervention adherence in non-pharmacological RCTs, and how this data is incorporated into a trial's interpretation and conclusions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of phase III RCTs published between January 2018 and June 2020 in the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library for the Health Technology Assessment, Programme Grants for Applied Research, and Public Health Research funding streams. RESULTS: Of 237 reports published, 76 met the eligibility criteria and were included. Most RCTs (n = 68, 89.5%) reported adherence, though use of terminology varied widely; nearly three quarters of these (n = 49, 72.1%) conducted a sensitivity analysis. Adherence measures varied between intervention types: behavioural change (n = 10, 43.5%), psychological therapy (n = 5, 83.3%) and physiotherapy/rehabilitation (n = 8, 66.7%) interventions predominately measured adherence based on session attendance. Whereas medical device and surgical interventions (n = 17, 73.9%) primarily record the number of participants receiving the allocated intervention, a third (n = 33, 67.3%) of studies reported a difference in findings between primary and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Although most trials report elements of adherence, terminology was inconsistent, and there was no systematic approach to its measurement, analyses, interpretation, or reporting. Given the importance of adherence within clinical trials, there is a pressing need for a standardised approach or framework.