Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. SETTING: Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. INTERVENTIONS: 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Midostaurin In The Treatment Of Acute Myeloid Leukemia With The FLT3 Mutation In Spain.

PURPOSE: The addition of midostaurin to standard chemotherapy (cytarabine and daunorubicin) has shown significant improvements in the survival of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with the FLT3 mutation (FLT3-AML). The objective of this study was to determine whether this intervention would be cost-effective in Spain. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with five health states was developed (diagnosis and induction, complete remission, no complete remission, transplantation and death). A lifetime time horizon and the Spanish National Health System perspective were adopted. During the first three years, permanence in the different health states was determined according to the results of the RATIFY study. In successive years, the death rates of the Spanish population adjusted by a factor to reflect long-term disease-related mortality were used. Utilities were obtained from the literature. Pharmacological costs (first and second line) and the costs of other health resources (hospitalizations, visits and tests) were included. The robustness of the model was evaluated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The addition of midostaurin resulted in 1.46 life years gained (LYG) and 1.23 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and implied an additional cost of € 47,955, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 32,854/LYG and an incremental cost-utility ratio of € 38,985/QALY. In the univariate sensitivity analysis, the threshold of € 50,000/QALY was not exceeded in any case; taking into consideration potential discounts of 20-40% in the PVL of midostaurin the ICER would be below € 30,000/QALY, a commonly accepted threshold in Spain. In the probabilistic analysis, when the threshold was € 50,000/QALY, midostaurin was cost-effective in 82.3% of simulations. CONCLUSION: According to our modeling, midostaurin, in combination with standard chemotherapy, could be an efficient alternative for the treatment of FLT3-AML in Spain.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve the mental health support and training available to secondary school teachers - the WISE (Wellbeing in Secondary Education) study.

BACKGROUND: Teachers are reported to be at increased risk of common mental health disorders compared to other occupations. Failure to support teachers adequately may lead to serious long-term mental disorders, poor performance at work (presenteeism), sickness absence and health-related exit from the profession. It also jeopardises student mental health, as distressed staff struggle to develop supportive relationships with students, and such relationships are protective against student depression. A number of school-based trials have attempted to improve student mental health, but these have mostly focused on classroom based approaches and have failed to establish effectiveness. Only a few studies have introduced training for teachers in supporting students, and none to date have included a focus on improving teacher mental health. This paper sets out the protocol (version 4.4 20/07/16) for a study aiming to address this gap. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial with secondary schools as the unit of randomisation. Intervention schools will receive: i) Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training for a group of staff nominated by their colleagues, after which they will set up a confidential peer support service for colleagues ii) training in MHFA for schools and colleges for a further group of teachers, which will equip them to more effectively support student mental health iii) a short mental health awareness raising session and promotion of the peer support service for all teachers. Comparison schools will continue with usual practice. The primary outcome is teacher wellbeing measured using the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS). Secondary outcomes are teacher depression, absence and presenteeism, and student wellbeing, mental health difficulties, attendance and attainment. Measures will be taken at baseline, one year follow up (teachers only) and two year follow up. Economic and process evaluations will be embedded within the study. DISCUSSION: This study will establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention that supports secondary school teachers' wellbeing and mental health, and improves their skills in supporting students. It will also provide information regarding intervention implementation and sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN95909211 registered 24/03/16.