NHS reference costs: a history and cautionary note.

Historically, the NHS did not routinely collect cost data, unlike many countries with private insurance markets. In 1998, for the first time the government mandated NHS trusts to submit estimates of their costs of service, known as reference costs. These have informed a wide range of health economic evaluations and important functions in the health service, such as setting prices.Reference costs are collected by progressively disaggregating budgets top-down into disease and treatment groups. Despite ongoing improvements to methods and guidance, these submissions continued to suffer a lack of accuracy and comparability, fundamentally undermining their credibility for critical functions.To overcome these issues, there was a long-held ambition to collect "patient-level" cost data. Patient-level costs are estimated with a combination of disaggregating budgets but also capturing the patient-level "causality of costs" bottom-up in the allocation of resources to patient episodes. These not only aim to capture more of the drivers of costs, but also improve consistency of reporting between providers.The change in methods may confer improvements to data quality, though judgement is still required and achieving consistency between trusts will take further work. Estimated costs may also change in important ways that may take many years to fully understand. We end on a cautionary note that patient-level cost methods may unlock potential, they alone contribute little to our understanding of the complexities involved with service quality or need, while that potential will require substantial investment to realise. Many healthcare resources cannot be attributed to individual patients so the very notion of "patient-level" costs may be misplaced. High hopes have been put in these new data, though much more work is now necessary to understand their quality, what they show and how their use will impact the system.

Protocol for the TRANSLATE prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial of prostate biopsy technique.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: to determine whether local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (LATP) biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≥2 disease (i.e., any Gleason pattern 4 disease), compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, in biopsy-naïve men undergoing biopsy based on suspicion of csPCa. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: to compare (i) infection rates, (ii) health-related quality of life, (iii) patient-reported procedure tolerability, (iv) patient-reported biopsy-related complications (including bleeding, bruising, pain, loss of erectile function), (v) number of subsequent prostate biopsy procedures required, (vi) cost-effectiveness, (vii) other histological parameters, and (viii) burden and rate of detection of clinically insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1 disease) in men undergoing these two types of prostate biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The TRANSLATE trial is a UK-wide, multicentre, randomised clinical trial that meets the criteria for level-one evidence in diagnostic test evaluation. TRANSLATE is investigating whether LATP biopsy leads to a higher rate of detection of csPCa compared to TRUS prostate biopsy. Both biopsies are being performed with an average of 12 systematic cores in six sectors (depending on prostate size), plus three to five target cores per multiparametric/bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging lesion. LATP biopsy is performed using an ultrasound probe-mounted needle-guidance device (either the 'Precision-Point' or BK UA1232 system). TRUS biopsy is performed according to each hospital's standard practice. The study is 90% powered to detect a 10% difference (LATP biopsy hypothesised at 55% detection rate for csPCa vs 45% for TRUS biopsy). A total of 1042 biopsy-naïve men referred with suspected PCa need to be recruited. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust prospective data to determine the diagnostic ability of LATP biopsy vs TRUS biopsy in the primary diagnostic setting.

TORPEdO: A phase III trial of intensity-modulated proton beam therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy for multi-toxicity reduction in oropharyngeal cancer.

•There is a lack of prospective level I evidence for the use of PBT for most adult cancers including oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).•TORPEdO is the UK's first PBT clinical trial and aims to determine the benefits of PBT for OPSCC.•Training and support has been provided before and during the trial to reduce variations of contouring and radiotherapy planning.•There is a strong translational component within TORPEdO. Imaging and physics data along with blood, tissue collection will inform future studies in refining patient selection for IMPT.

Quality of life in older adults with chronic kidney disease and transient changes in renal function: Findings from the Oxford Renal cohort.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is an important measure of disease burden and general health perception. The relationship between early chronic kidney disease (CKD) and QoL remains poorly understood. The Oxford Renal Study (OxRen) cohort comprises 1063 adults aged ≥60 years from UK primary care practices screened for early CKD, grouped according to existing or screen-detected CKD diagnoses, or biochemistry results indicative of reduced renal function (referred to as transient estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare QoL in participants known to have CKD at recruitment to those identified as having CKD through a screening programme. METHODS: Health profile data and multi-attribute utility scores were reported for two generic questionnaires: 5-level EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A). QoL was compared between patients with existing and screen-detected CKD; those with transient eGFR reduction served as the reference group in univariable and multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Mean and standard deviation utility scores were not significantly different between the subgroups for EQ-5D-5L (screen-detected:0.785±0.156, n = 480, transient:0.779±0.157, n = 261, existing CKD:0.763±0.171, n = 322, p = 0.216) or ICECAP-A (screen-detected:0.909±0.094, transient:0.904±0.110, existing CKD:0.894±0.115, p = 0.200). Age, smoking status, and number of comorbidities were identified as independent predictors of QoL in this cohort. CONCLUSION: QoL of participants with existing CKD diagnoses was not significantly different from those with screen-detected CKD or transient eGFR reduction and was similar to UK mean scores for the same age, suggesting that patient burden of early CKD is minor. Moreover, CKD-related comorbidities contribute more significantly to disease burden in earlier stages of CKD than renal function per se. Larger prospective studies are required to define the relationship between QoL and CKD progression more precisely. These data also confirm the essentially asymptomatic nature of CKD, implying that routine screening or case finding are required to diagnose it.

Estimating BMI distributions by age and sex for local authorities in England: a small area estimation study.

OBJECTIVES: Rates of overweight and obesity vary across England, but local rates have not been estimated for over 10 years. We aimed to produce new small area estimates of body mass index (BMI) by age and sex for each lower tier and unitary local authority in England, to provide up-to-date and more detailed estimates for the use of policy-makers and academics working in non-communicable disease risk and health inequalities. DESIGN: We used generalised linear modelling to estimate the relationship between BMI with social/demographic markers in a cross-sectional survey, then used this model to impute a BMI for each adult in locally-representative populations. These groups were then disaggregated by 5-year age group, sex and local authority group. SETTING: The Health Survey for England 2018 (cross-sectional BMI data for England) and Census microdata 2011 (locally representative). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 6174 complete cases aged 16 and over were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Modelled group-level BMI as mean and SD of log-BMI. Extensive internal validation was performed, against the original data and external validation against the National Diet and Nutrition Survey and Active Lives Survey and previous small area estimates. RESULTS: In 94% of age-sex are groups, mean BMI was in the overweight or obese ranges. Older and more deprived areas had the highest overweight and obesity rates, which were particularly in coastal areas, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber. Validation showed close concordance with previous estimates by local area and demographic groups. CONCLUSION: This work updated previous estimates of the distribution of BMI in England and contributes considerable additional detail to our understanding of the local epidemiology of overweight and obesity. Raised BMI now affects the vast majority of demographic groups by age, sex and area in England, regardless of geography or deprivation.

Quality of life, healthcare use and costs in 'at-risk' children after early antibiotic treatment versus placebo for influenza-like illness: within-trial descriptive economic analyses of the ARCHIE randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the quality of life, healthcare use and costs associated with early antibiotic treatment of influenza-like illness (ILI) in 'at-risk' children. DESIGN: Economic analysis of a two-arm double-blind parallel group pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Children were recruited from community-based healthcare settings, including general practices, walk-in centres and hospital ambulatory care. PARTICIPANTS: Children with risk factors for influenza-related complications, including respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions, who presented within the first 5 days of an ILI. INTERVENTIONS: Co-amoxiclav 400/57 suspension or placebo. OUTCOME MEASURES: This economic analysis focused on quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-Y, symptoms assessed by the Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale (CARIFS), healthcare use and costs including medication, hospital visits and admissions, general practitioner and nurse contacts. Outcomes were assessed for up to 28 days post randomisation. RESULTS: Information on resource use, EQ-5D-Y (day 28) and CARIFS (day 7) was available for 265 (98%), 72 (27%) and 123 (45%) out of 271 participants, respectively. Average costs in the co-amoxiclav group were £25 lower (95% CI -£113 to £65), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.566). The difference in EQ-5D-Y scores between groups was also not statistically significant (-0.014 (95% CI -0.124 to 0.096), p=0.798). However, day 7 CARIFS scores were 3.5 points lower in the co-amoxiclav arm (95% CI -6.9 to -0.1, p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not show evidence that early co-amoxiclav treatment improves quality of life or reduces healthcare use and costs in 'at-risk' children with ILI, but may reduce symptom severity though confirmation from further research would be important. Reliable data collection from children's parents/carers was challenging, and resulted in high levels of missing data, which is common in pragmatic trials involving children with acute respiratory tract infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70714783; EudraCT 2013-002822-21.

The costs of bipolar disorder in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the individual cost and population-level economic burden of Bipolar Disorder (BD), and explore the impact of clinical and sociodemographic factors on costs in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Annual UK health care, social care and societal cost data were collected from a prospective cohort of 91 BD patients using digital monitoring of symptoms. Costs (in £) were calculated for the year of resource use collection (2010-2011) and main results inflated to year 2018-2019. A Generalized Estimating Equation framework was used to investigate individual factors influencing costs. An economic burden estimate was derived by multiplying the mean annual cost per patient with literature-based population prevalence. RESULTS: The average annual cost of BD per patient was £12,617 (SE = ±£1085) or £14,938 (SE = ±£1281) at 2018-2019 prices with 68% of the total costs attributed to lost productivity and informal care, 31% to health care costs, 1% to private out-of-pocket expenses, and 0.5% to social care costs. A unit increase in average levels of depressive or manic symptoms were associated with 7% and 11% higher societal costs, respectively. The estimated annual prevalence of BD in the United Kingdom was 0.8% resulting in a population-level economic burden estimate of £5.1 billion for 2010-2011 or £6.43 billion for 2018-2019. CONCLUSIONS: BD is a disease of substantial costs in the United Kingdom with the majority of the economic burden falling outside the health care system in the form of productivity losses and informal care. These costs highly correlate with patient outcomes highlighting further needs for improved treatment efforts into functionality.

Survival, Dependency, and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysm: 10-Year Follow-up of the United Kingdom Cohort of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) cohort have reported on clinical outcomes after treatment of a ruptured intracranial aneurysm with either neurosurgical clipping or endovascular coiling. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of endovascular coiling compare to neurosurgical clipping in the UK cohort of ISAT. METHODS: Between September 12, 1994 and May 1, 2002, patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms who were assumed treatment equipoise were randomly allocated to either neurosurgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We followed-up 1644 patients in 22 UK neurosurgical centers for a minimum of 10 yr. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was collected through yearly questionnaires, measured by utilities calculated from the EQ-5D-3L. We compared HRQoL between the 2 treatment groups over a period of 10 yr. In all, 1-yr, 5-yr, and 10-yr QALYs were estimated by combining utility and survival information. RESULTS: Higher average utility values were found in the endovascular group throughout the follow-up period, with mean differences between groups statistically significant in most years. The 10-yr QALYs were estimated to be 6.68 (95% CI: 6.45-6.90) in the coiling group and 6.32 (95% CI: 6.10-6.55) in the clipping group, respectively, a significant mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.04-0.66). A third of this mean QALYs gain was estimated to derive solely from HRQoL differences. CONCLUSION: HRQoL after treatment of a ruptured intracranial aneurysm was better after endovascular coiling compared to neurosurgical clipping, which contributed significantly to the QALYs gained over a 10-yr period.

Quality of life in the FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-global randomised trials of selective internal radiotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) is a liver-directed treatment involving the injection of yttrium-90 microspheres into the blood supply of liver tumours. There are very few studies assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients treated with SIRT. Patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) were randomised in the FOXFIRE (FFr; ISRCTN83867919), SIRFLOX (SF; NCT00724503) and FOXFIRE-Global (FFrG; NCT01721954) trials of first-line oxaliplatin-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) chemotherapy combined with SIRT versus FOLFOX alone. HRQOL was assessed using the three-level EQ-5D, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Colorectal Liver Metastases cancer module (EORTC QLQ-LMC21) at baseline, ≤3 months, 6 months, 12 months and annually thereafter from randomisation, and at disease progression. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. In total, 554 patients were randomised to SIRT + FOLFOX and 549 patients to FOLFOX alone. HRQOL was statistically significant lower in SIRT + FOLFOX patients ≤3 months after SIRT administration in all three instruments, particularly global health, physical and role functioning and symptoms of fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. By accepted thresholds, these differences were deemed not clinically important. Differences between SIRT + FOLFOX and FOLFOX alone over the 2-year follow up and at disease progression were also not clinically important. Although there is some decrease in HRQOL for up to 3 months following SIRT, the addition of SIRT to FOLFOX chemotherapy does not change HRQOL to a clinically important degree in metastatic CRC patients.

The effectiveness of home versus community-based weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer diagnosis may be a teachable moment for lifestyle behaviour change and to prevent adjuvant therapy associated weight gain. We assessed the acceptability and effectiveness of two weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis to reduce weight amongst overweight or obese women and prevent gains in normal-weight women. METHODS: Overweight or obese (n = 243) and normal weight (n = 166) women were randomised to a three-month unsupervised home (home), a supervised community weight control programme (community) or to standard written advice (control). Primary end points were change in weight and body fat at 12 months. Secondary end points included change in insulin, cardiovascular risk markers, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the programmes. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of eligible women were recruited. Both programmes reduced weight and body fat: home vs. control mean (95% CI); weight -2.3 (-3.5, -1.0) kg, body fat -1.6 (-2.6, -0.7) kg, community vs. control; weight -2.4 (-3.6, -1.1) kg, body fat -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5) kg (all p < 0.001). The community group increased physical activity, reduced insulin, cardiovascular disease risk markers, increased QOL and was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The programmes were equally effective for weight control, but the community programme had additional benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN68576140.

PRIMEtime CE: a multistate life table model for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions affecting diet and physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases are the leading cause of death in England, and poor diet and physical inactivity are two of the principle behavioural risk factors. In the context of increasingly constrained financial resources, decision makers in England need to be able to compare the potential costs and health outcomes of different public health policies aimed at improving these risk factors in order to know where to invest so that they can maximise population health. This paper describes PRIMEtime CE, a multistate life table cost-effectiveness model that can directly compare interventions affecting multiple disease outcomes. METHODS: The multistate life table model, PRIMEtime Cost Effectiveness (PRIMEtime CE), is developed from the Preventable Risk Integrated ModEl (PRIME) and the PRIMEtime model. PRIMEtime CE uses routinely available data to estimate how changing diet and physical activity in England affects morbidity and mortality from heart disease, stroke, diabetes, liver disease, and cancers either directly or via raised blood pressure, cholesterol, and body weight. RESULTS: Model outcomes are change in quality adjusted life years, and change in English National Health Service and social care costs. CONCLUSION: This paper describes PRIMEtime CE and highlights its main strengths and limitations. The model can be used to compare any number of public policies affecting diet and physical activity, allowing decision makers to understand how they can maximise population health with limited financial resources.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of salt reformulation and increasing access to leisure centres in England, with PRIMEtime CE model validation using the AdViSHE tool.

BACKGROUND: PRIMEtime CE is a multistate life table model that can directly compare the cost effectiveness of public health interventions affecting diet and physical activity levels, helping to inform decisions about how to spend finite resources. This paper estimates the costs and health outcomes in England of two scenarios: reformulating salt and expanding subsidised access to leisure centres. The results are used to help validate PRIMEtime CE, following the steps outlined in the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE) tool. METHODS: The PRIMEtime CE model estimates the difference in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and difference in NHS and social care costs of modelled interventions compared with doing nothing. The salt reformulation scenario models how salt consumption would change if food producers met the 2017 UK Food Standards Agency salt reformulation targets. The leisure centre scenario models change in physical activity levels if the Birmingham Be Active scheme (where swimming pools and gym access is free to residents during defined periods) was rolled out across England. The AdViSHE tool was developed by health economic modellers and divides model validation into five parts: validation of the conceptual model, input data validation, validation of computerised model, operational validation, and other validation techniques. PRIMEtime CE is discussed in relation to each part. RESULTS: Salt reformulation was dominant compared with doing nothing, and had a 10-year return on investment of £1.44 (£0.50 to £2.94) for every £1 spent. By contrast, over 10 years the Be Active expansion would cost £727,000 (£514,000 to £1,064,000) per QALY. PRIMEtime CE has good face validity of its conceptual model and has robust input data. Cross-validation produces mixed results and shows the impact of model scope, input parameters, and model structure on cost-per-QALY estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This paper illustrates how PRIMEtime CE can be used to compare the cost-effectiveness of two different public health measures affecting diet and physical activity levels. The AdViSHE tool helps to validate PRIMEtime CE, identifies some of the key drivers of model estimates, and highlights the challenges of externally validating public health economic models against independent data.

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. DESIGN: We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. SETTING: Five NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. INTERVENTIONS: Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The randomisation of 80 men. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and 'tips' documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) - with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants - than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. CONCLUSIONS: Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted. FUTURE WORK: Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303. 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. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Systematic literature review of methodologies and data sources of existing economic models across the full spectrum of Alzheimer's disease and dementia from apparently healthy through disease progression to end of life care: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges the world will face in the coming decades, as it is one of the principal causes of disability and dependency among older people. Economic modelling is used widely across many health conditions to inform decisions on health and social care policy and practice. The aim of this literature review is to systematically identify, review and critically evaluate existing health economics models in dementia. We included the full spectrum of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), from preclinical stages through to severe dementia and end of life. This review forms part of the Real world Outcomes across the Alzheimer's Disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data Access Platform (ROADMAP) project. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Electronic searches were conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Economic Literature Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Science Citation Index, Turning Research Into Practice and Open Grey for studies published between January 2000 and the end of June 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study against predefined eligibility criteria. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreement. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed using the Phillips checklist for decision analytic modelling. A narrative synthesis will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be made available in a scientific peer-reviewed journal paper, will be presented at relevant conferences and will also be made available through the ROADMAP project. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017073874.

Early use of Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza (ARCHIE): protocol for a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) create considerable burden on healthcare resources each winter. Children with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, diabetes mellitus and cerebral palsy are among those at greatest risk of clinical deterioration from influenza/ILI. The Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza (ARCHIE) trial aims to determine whether early oral treatment with the antibiotic co-amoxiclav reduces the likelihood of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in these 'at risk' children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ARCHIE trial is a double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. 'At risk' children aged 6 months to 12 years inclusive who present within the first 5 days of an ILI episode will be randomised to receive a 5-day course of oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 twice daily or placebo. Randomisation will use a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and seasonal influenza vaccination status.To detect respiratory virus infections, a nasal swab will be obtained from each participant before commencing study medication. To identify carriage of potential bacterial respiratory pathogens, we will also obtain a throat swab where possible.The primary outcome is reconsultation in any healthcare setting due to clinical deterioration within 28 days of randomisation. We will analyse this outcome using log-binomial regression model adjusted for region, age and seasonal influenza vaccination status.Secondary outcomes include duration of fever, duration of symptoms and adverse events. Continuous outcomes will be compared using regression analysis (or equivalent non-parametric method for non-normal data) adjusting for minimisation variables. Binary outcomes will be compared using χ2/Fisher's exact test and log-binomial regression. ETHICS: The ARCHIE trial has been reviewed and approved by the North West-Liverpool East Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated via our study website (www.archiestudy.com) and links with relevant charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN 70714783; Pre-results. EudraCT 2013-002822-21; Pre-results.

Estimating comparable English healthcare costs for multiple diseases and unrelated future costs for use in health and public health economic modelling.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare interventions, and particularly those in public health may affect multiple diseases and significantly prolong life. No consensus currently exists for how to estimate comparable healthcare costs across multiple diseases for use in health and public health cost-effectiveness models. We aim to describe a method for estimating comparable disease specific English healthcare costs as well as future healthcare costs from diseases unrelated to those modelled. METHODS: We use routine national datasets including programme budgeting data and cost curves from NHS England to estimate annual per person costs for diseases included in the PRIMEtime model as well as age and sex specific costs due to unrelated diseases. RESULTS: The 2013/14 annual cost to NHS England per prevalent case varied between £3,074 for pancreatic cancer and £314 for liver disease. Costs due to unrelated diseases increase with age except for a secondary peak at 30-34 years for women reflecting maternity resource use. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology described allows health and public health economic modellers to estimate comparable English healthcare costs for multiple diseases. This facilitates the direct comparison of different health and public health interventions enabling better decision making.

Measuring quality of life of people with predementia and dementia and their caregivers: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is the fastest growing major cause of disability globally and may have a profound impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of both the patient with dementia and those who care for them. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesise the measurements of HRQoL for people with, and their caregivers across the full spectrum of, dementia from its preceding stage of predementia to end of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review was conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online , ExcerptaMedicadataBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsycINFO between January 1990 and the end of April 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. HRQoL measurements will be presented separately for people with dementia and caregivers by instrument used and, when possible, HRQoL will be reported by disease type and stage of the disease. Descriptive statistics of the results will be provided. A narrative synthesis of studies will also be provided discussing differences in HRQoL measurements by instrument used to estimate it, type of dementia and disease severity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic literature review is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The findings of the review will be disseminated in a related peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. They will also contribute to the work developed in the Real World Outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data access platform (ROADMAP). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017071416.

Economic analysis of oral dexamethasone for symptom relief of sore throat: the UK TOAST study.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake an economic analysis assessing the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone compared with placebo for the relief of sore throat. DESIGN: A UK-based, multicentre, two arm, individually randomised, double blind trial. SETTING AND POPULATION: Adults (≥18 years) with acute sore throat and painful swallowing judged to be infective in origin, recruited and randomised in primary care. INTERVENTION: a single dose of 10 mg oral dexamethasone compared with placebo given at primary care visit. MAIN OUTCOME: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost per quality-adjusted symptom resolution using the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels instrument, were estimated as part of a cost-utility analysis performed on an intention-to-treat cohort adopting a health payers perspective. RESULTS: Differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 7 days from baseline and at 24 hours in the dexamethasone compared with the placebo group (2.9% and 2.5% higher, respectively) were observed. After controlling for the baseline HRQoL imbalances, the economic impact of the intervention was not statistically significant: the quality-adjusted life year difference was -0.00005 (95% CI -0.0002 to 0.00011) equivalent to a loss in HRQoL of a half hour in the dexamethasone group. The average cost per patient associated in the dexamethasone and placebo groups in the basecase analysis was £73 and £69, respectively. In the basecase probabilistic analysis, the mean ICER was -£6440 (95% CI -£132 151 to £126 335) and the median ICER was -£304 (IQR-£5816 to £3877); suggesting considerable uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The economic burden associated with sore throat is substantial and was estimated at £2.35 billion to the healthcare services payer based on reported resource use and 2015 UK unit costs. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone as a treatment strategy and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17435450; Post-results.

Preference-based measures to obtain health state utility values for use in economic evaluations with child-based populations: a review and UK-based focus group assessment of patient and parent choices.

BACKGROUND: No current guidance is available in the UK on the choice of preference-based measure (PBM) that should be used in obtaining health-related quality of life from children. The aim of this study is to review the current usage of PBMs for obtaining health state utility values in child and adolescent populations, and to obtain information on patient and parent-proxy respondent preferences in completing PBMs in the UK. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to determine which instrument is most frequently used for child-based economic evaluations and whether child or proxy responses are used. Instruments were compared on dimensions, severity levels, elicitation and valuation methods, availability of value sets and validation studies, and the range of utility values generated. Additionally, a series of focus groups of parents and young people (11-20 years) were convened to determine patient and proxy preferences. RESULTS: Five PBMs suitable for child populations were identified, although only the Health Utilities Index 2 (HUI2) and Child Heath Utility 9D (CHU-9D) have UK value sets. 45 papers used PBMs in this population, but many used non-child-specific PBMs. Most respondents were parent proxies, even in adolescent populations. Reported missing data ranged from 0.5 to 49.3%. The focus groups reported their experiences with the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D. Both the young persons' group and parent/proxy groups felt that the CHU-9D was more comprehensive but may be harder for a proxy to complete. Some younger children had difficulty understanding the CHU-9D questions, but the young persons' group nonetheless preferred responding directly. CONCLUSION: The use of PBMs in child populations is increasing, but many studies use PBMs that do not have appropriate value sets. Parent proxies are the most common respondents, but the focus group responses suggest it would be preferred, and may be more informative, for older children to self-report or for child-parent dyads to respond.