Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections. DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance. RESULTS: Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (-£40; 95% CI: -684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70219762.

Effectiveness of septoplasty compared to medical management in adults with obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum: the NAIROS RCT.

Background: The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants: A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions: Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results: At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations: COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions: Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Septoplasty is an operation to straighten the septum, which is the partition wall between the nostrils inside the nose. Septoplasty can be used as a treatment for people who have a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose, such as difficulty sleeping and exercising. Medical management (a saltwater spray to clear the nose followed by a nose steroid spray) is an alternative treatment to septoplasty. The Nasal AIRway Obstruction Study (NAIROS) aimed to find out whether septoplasty or medical management is a better treatment for people with a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose. We recruited 378 patients with at least moderately severe nose symptoms from 17 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to take part in the NAIROS. Participants were randomly put into one of two groups: septoplasty or medical management. Participants' nose symptoms were measured both when they joined the study and after 6 months, using a questionnaire called the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items. This questionnaire was chosen because patients reported that it included symptoms that were important to them. Other studies have shown that a 9-point change in the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score is significant. After 6 months, on average, people in the septoplasty group improved by 25 points, whereas people in the medical management group improved by 5 points. We saw improvement after septoplasty among patients with moderate symptoms, and among those with severe symptoms. Most patients who we spoke to after a septoplasty were happy with their treatment, but some would have liked more information about what to expect after their nose surgery. In the short term, septoplasty is more costly than medical management. However, over the longer term, taking into account all the costs and benefits of treatment, suggests that septoplasty would be considered good value for money for the NHS.

Is primary trabeculectomy cost-effective for patients with advanced primary open angle glaucoma? Results from the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study economic model.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Advanced primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is a lifelong condition. The aim of this study is to compare medical treatment against trabeculectomy for patients presenting with advanced POAG using an economic evaluation decision model. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare the two treatments, medical treatment versus trabeculectomy for the management of advanced POAG, in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The uncertainty surrounding the model findings was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and deterministic analysis. Data for the model came from Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study supplemented with data from the literature. The main outcomes of the model presented in terms of Incremental costs and QALYs based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index-3 and a Glaucoma Utility Index. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis (lifetime horizon and EQ-5D-5L measure), participants receiving trabeculectomy had on average, an additional cost of £2687, an additional 0.28 QALYs and an incremental cost per QALY of £9679 compared with medical treatment. There was a 73% likelihood of trabeculectomy being considered cost-effective when society was willing to pay £20 000 for a QALY. Over shorter time horizons, the incremental cost per QALY gained from trabeculectomy compared with medical treatment was higher (47 663) for a 2-year time horizon. Our results are robust to changes in the key assumptions and input parameters values. CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with advanced POAG, trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective over a patient's lifetime compared with medical treatment.

Evaluating Primary Treatment for People with Advanced Glaucoma: Five-Year Results of the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or medical treatment produces better outcomes in terms of quality of life (QoL), clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Between June 3, 2014, and May 31, 2017, 453 adults with newly diagnosed advanced open-angle glaucoma in at least 1 eye (Hodapp classification) were recruited from 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the United Kingdom. Two hundred twenty-seven were allocated to trabeculectomy, and 226 were allocated medical management. METHODS: Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis to have either mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy or escalating medical management with intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing drops as the primary intervention and were followed up for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was vision-specific QoL measured with the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were general health status, glaucoma-related QoL, clinical effectiveness (IOP, visual field, and visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 5 years, the mean ± standard deviation VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medication arms were 83.3 ± 15.5 and 81.3 ± 17.5, respectively, and the mean difference was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.99 to 4.00; P = 0.51). The mean IOPs were 12.07 ± 5.18 mmHg and 14.76 ± 4.14 mmHg, respectively, and the mean difference was -2.56 (95% CI, -3.80 to -1.32; P < 0.001). Glaucoma severity measured with visual field mean deviation were -14.30 ± 7.14 dB and -16.74 ± 6.78 dB, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.87 (95% CI, 0.87-2.87 dB; P < 0.001). Safety events occurred in 115 (52.2%) of patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 124 (57.9%) of patients in the medication arm (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.54). Serious adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study demonstrated that primary trabeculectomy surgery is more effective in lowering IOP and preventing disease progression than primary medical treatment in patients with advanced disease and has a similar safety profile. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Clinical effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for nasal airways obstruction: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of septoplasty. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 17 otolaryngology clinics in the UK's National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: 378 adults (≥18 years, 67% men) newly referred with symptoms of nasal obstruction associated with septal deviation and at least moderate symptoms of nasal obstruction (score >30 on the Nasal Obstruction and Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either septoplasty (n=188) or defined medical management (n=190, nasal steroid and saline spray for six months), stratified by baseline symptom severity and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was patient reported score on the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) at six months, with 9 points defined as the minimal clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and objective nasal airflow measures. RESULTS: Mean SNOT-22 scores at six months were 19.9 (95% confidence interval 17.0 to 22.7) in the septoplasty arm (n=152, intention-to-treat population) and 39.5 (36.1 to 42.9) in the medical management arm (n=155); an estimated 20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to receive septoplasty (95% confidence interval 16.4 to 23.6, P<0.001, adjusted for baseline continuous SNOT-22 score and the stratification variables sex and baseline NOSE severity categories). Greater improvement in SNOT-22 scores was predicted by higher baseline symptom severity scores. Quality of life outcomes and nasal airflow measures (including peak nasal inspiratory flow and absolute inhalational nasal partitioning ratio) improved more in participants in the septoplasty group. Readmission to hospital with bleeding after septoplasty occurred in seven participants (4% of 174 who had septoplasty), and a further 20 participants (12%) required antibiotics for infections. CONCLUSIONS: Septoplasty is a more effective intervention than a defined medical management regimen with a nasal steroid and saline spray in adults with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16168569.

Dual bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis study (DIBS): protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, three-arm, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial studying bronchodilators in preventing exacerbations of bronchiectasis.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15988757.

Conservative management versus tonsillectomy in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis in the UK (NATTINA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tonsillectomy is regularly performed in adults with acute tonsillitis, but with scarce evidence. A reduction in tonsillectomies has coincided with an increase in acute adult hospitalisation for tonsillitis complications. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative management versus tonsillectomy in patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted in 27 hospitals in the UK. Participants were adults aged 16 years or older who were newly referred to secondary care otolaryngology clinics with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tonsillectomy or conservative management using random permuted blocks of variable length. Stratification by recruiting centre and baseline symptom severity was assessed using the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score (categories defined as mild 0-35, moderate 36-48, or severe 49-70). Participants in the tonsillectomy group received elective surgery to dissect the palatine tonsils within 8 weeks after random assignment and those in the conservative management group received standard non-surgical care during 24 months. The primary outcome was the number of sore throat days collected during 24 months after random assignment, reported once per week with a text message. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 55284102. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2015, and April 30, 2018, 4165 participants with recurrent acute tonsillitis were assessed for eligibility and 3712 were excluded. 453 eligible participants were randomly assigned (233 in the immediate tonsillectomy group vs 220 in the conservative management group). 429 (95%) patients were included in the primary ITT analysis (224 vs 205). The median age of participants was 23 years (IQR 19-30), with 355 (78%) females and 97 (21%) males. Most participants were White (407 [90%]). Participants in the immediate tonsillectomy group had fewer days of sore throat during 24 months than those in the conservative management group (median 23 days [IQR 11-46] vs 30 days [14-65]). After adjustment for site and baseline severity, the incident rate ratio of total sore throat days in the immediate tonsillectomy group (n=224) compared with the conservative management group (n=205) was 0·53 (95% CI 0·43 to 0·65; <0·0001). 191 adverse events in 90 (39%) of 231 participants were deemed related to tonsillectomy. The most common adverse event was bleeding (54 events in 44 [19%] participants). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conservative management, immediate tonsillectomy is clinically effective and cost-effective in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat: the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain. Objectives: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways. Design: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Participants: A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial. Interventions: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms. Results: There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12-52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11-46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14-65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it. Limitations: The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial. Conclusions: The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Tonsillectomy is an operation to take out the pair of tonsil glands at the back of the throat. It is an option for adults who suffer from repeated, severe sore throats. Adults who have a tonsillectomy say that they get fewer sore throats afterwards, but it is not clear whether or not they would have got better over time without the operation. There is pressure on doctors to limit the number of tonsillectomies carried out. At the same time, emergency hospital admissions for adults with severe throat infections have been increasing. NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults aimed to find out whether tonsillectomy is an effective and worthwhile treatment for repeated severe sore throats or whether patients would be better off treated without an operation. A total of 453 patients from 27 hospitals in Great Britain took part in the study. Patients were assigned at random to receive either tonsillectomy or conservative management (treatment as needed from their general practitioner). We measured how many sore throats patients had in the next 2 years by sending them text messages every week. We asked about the impact of their sore throats on their quality of life and time off work, and looked at the costs of treatment. We also interviewed 47 patients, general practitioners and hospital staff about their experiences of tonsillectomy and NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults. The typical patient in the tonsillectomy arm had 23 days of sore throat compared with 30 days of sore throat in the conservative management arm. Tonsillectomy resulted in higher quality of life. We looked to see whether or not it was only those with the most severe sore throats who benefited from tonsillectomy, but we found that patients with more or less severe sore throats at the start all did better with tonsillectomy. Patients who had a tonsillectomy were happy to have undertaken this. Our findings suggest a clear benefit of tonsillectomy using modest additional NHS resources for adults with repeated severe sore throats.

Cost-effectiveness of primary surgical versus primary medical management in the treatment of patients presenting with advanced glaucoma.

SYNOPSIS: Advanced glaucoma is associated with sight loss. This within-trial economic evaluation compares medical and surgical management strategies. At 2 years, medication appears more cost-effective though longitudinal outcomes are an important subject in future research. BACKGROUND/AIMS: Open angle glaucoma (OAG) is a progressive optic neuropathy. Approximately 25% of newly diagnosed patients with OAG present with advanced disease in at least one eye. The vision loss associated with OAG can lead to significant impacts on vision, quality of life and health care resources. The Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study is a randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of primary surgical and medical management for newly diagnosed advanced patients with OAG. An economic evaluation was carried out to understand the costs and benefits of each strategy. METHODS: A cost utility analysis was carried out from a National Health Service perspective over a 2-year time horizon inclusive of patient costs. The primary outcome was patient health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index 3 (HUI3) and Glaucoma Utility Index (GUI). Results were expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Trabeculectomy was associated with higher costs and greater effect, the EQ-5D-5L results have an incremental cost per QALY of £45,456. The likelihood of surgery being cost-effective at a £20, 000, £30,000 and £50,000 QALY threshold is 0%, 12% and 56%, respectively. The results for the HUI3, GUI and inclusion of patient costs do not change the conclusions of the study. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate management strategies for those presenting with advanced glaucoma. At a 2-year time horizon, medication is the more cost-effective approach for managing glaucoma. Future research can focus on the costs and benefits of the treatments over a longer time horizon.

Methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent recurrent urinary tract infections in women: the ALTAR non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Daily, low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis is the current standard care for women with recurrent urinary tract infection. Emerging antimicrobial resistance is a global health concern, prompting research interest in non-antibiotic agents such as methenamine hippurate, but comparative data on their efficacy and safety are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate (Hiprex®; Mylan NV, Canonsburg, PA, USA) compared with current standard care (antibiotic prophylaxis) for recurrent urinary tract infection prevention in adult women. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial of 12 months' treatment with the allocated intervention, including an early, embedded qualitative study and a 6-month post-treatment observation phase. The predefined non-inferiority margin was one urinary tract infection per person-year. SETTING: Eight UK NHS secondary care sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 240 adult women with recurrent urinary tract infection requiring preventative treatment participated in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: A central randomisation system allocated participants 1 : 1 to the experimental (methenamine hippurate: 1 g twice daily) or control (once-daily low-dose antibiotics: 50/100 mg of nitrofurantoin, 100 mg of trimethoprim or 250 mg of cefalexin) arm. Crossover between treatment arms was permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary clinical outcome was incidence of symptomatic antibiotic-treated urinary tract infection during the 12-month treatment period. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, extrapolated over the patient's expected lifetime using a Markov cohort model. Secondary outcomes included post-treatment urinary tract infections, total antibiotic use, microbiologically proven urinary tract infections, antimicrobial resistance, bacteriuria, hospitalisations and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Primary modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) randomised participants [102/120 (85%) participants in the antibiotics arm and 103/120 (86%) participants in the methenamine hippurate arm] with at least 6 months' data available. During treatment, the incidence rate of symptomatic, antibiotic-treated urinary tract infections decreased substantially in both arms to 1.38 episodes per person-year (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.72 episodes per person-year) for methenamine hippurate and 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12 episodes per person-year) for antibiotics (absolute difference 0.49; 90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84). This absolute difference did not exceed the predefined, strict, non-inferiority limit of one urinary tract infection per person-year. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotics in terms of quality-adjusted life-years gained; however, this finding was not consistent over the longer term. The urinary tract infection incidence rate 6 months after treatment completion was 1.72 episodes per year in the methenamine hippurate arm and 1.19 in the antibiotics arm. During treatment, 52% of urine samples taken during symptomatic urinary tract infections were microbiologically confirmed and higher proportions of participants taking daily antibiotics (46/64; 72%) demonstrated antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli cultured from perineal swabs than participants in the methenamine hippurate arm (39/70; 56%) (p-value = 0.05). Urine cultures revealed that during treatment higher proportions of participants and samples from the antibiotic arm grew E. coli resistant to trimethoprim/co-trimoxazole and cephalosporins, respectively. Conversely, post treatment, higher proportions of participants in the methenamine hippurate arm (9/45; 20%) demonstrated multidrug resistance in E. coli isolated from perineal swabs than participants in the antibiotic arm (2/39; 5%) (p = 0.06). All other secondary outcomes and adverse events were similar in both arms. LIMITATIONS: This trial could not define whether or not one particular antibiotic was more beneficial, and progressive data loss hampered economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This large, randomised, pragmatic trial in a routine NHS setting has clearly shown that methenamine hippurate is not inferior to current standard care (daily low-dose antibiotics) in preventing recurrent urinary tract infections in women. The results suggest that antimicrobial resistance is proportionally higher in women taking prophylactic antibiotics. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Future research should include evaluation of other non-antibiotic preventative treatments in well-defined homogeneous patient groups, preferably with the comparator of daily antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN70219762 and EudraCT 2015-003487-36. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Women with recurrent urine infections often require preventative treatment to reduce the frequency of infection episodes. Daily low-dose antibiotic medication is a guideline-recommended treatment option for these women. There is increasing concern globally regarding antibiotic-resistant infections, which has led researchers to look at alternative treatments. This trial was conducted to find out whether or not taking an alternative treatment that is not an antibiotic [i.e. methenamine hippurate (Hiprex^®; Mylan NV, Canonsburg, PA, USA)] was as effective as the standard daily low-dose antibiotics. A total of 240 women from across the UK took part in the trial. They were divided equally into two groups; half of the women were given methenamine hippurate and the other half were given standard low-dose antibiotics. Both treatments were prescribed to be taken every day for 1 year. To make a fair comparison, people were put into the two groups at random using a computer program. Aspects of the trial that could be improved were identified through telephone interviews with patients and recruiting staff. Feedback from these telephone interviews helped to ensure the successful conduct of the trial. Patients were followed up for 18 months, comprising the 12 months when they were taking treatment and a 6-month follow-up phase after they had finished treatment. We found that the non-antibiotic option of methenamine hippurate was no worse than the current standard treatment of daily antibiotics in preventing urinary tract infection episodes in adult women. For both treatments, patients expressed high levels of satisfaction. One advantage of the methenamine hippurate treatment was that infecting bacteria were slightly less likely to develop resistance to antibiotics. We also evaluated health-care costs of both treatments and found that methenamine hippurate seemed worthwhile to the NHS in the short term, but there was uncertainty over longer-term costs and benefits. These results will help patients with repeated urinary tract infections to decide on treatment options, particularly if they want to avoid prolonged courses of preventative antibiotics.

Alternative to prophylactic antibiotics for the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections in women: multicentre, open label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test and compare the efficacy of methenamine hippurate for prevention of recurrent urinary tract infections with the current standard prophylaxis of daily low dose antibiotics. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Random assignment (1:1, using permuted blocks of variable length via a web based system) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis or methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Absolute difference in incidence of symptomatic, antibiotic treated, urinary tract infections during treatment. A patient and public involvement group predefined the non-inferiority margin as one episode of urinary tract infection per person year. Analyses performed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprised all participants observed for at least six months. RESULTS: Participants were randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis (n=120) or methenamine hippurate (n=120). The modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 205 (85%) participants (antibiotics, n=102 (85%); methenamine hippurate, n=103 (86%)). Incidence of antibiotic treated urinary tract infections during the 12 month treatment period was 0.89 episodes per person year (95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.12) in the antibiotics group and 1.38 (1.05 to 1.72) in the methenamine hippurate group, with an absolute difference of 0.49 (90% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.84) confirming non-inferiority. Adverse reactions were reported by 34/142 (24%) in the antibiotic group and 35/127 (28%) in the methenamine group and most reactions were mild. CONCLUSION: Non-antibiotic prophylactic treatment with methenamine hippurate might be appropriate for women with a history of recurrent episodes of urinary tract infections, informed by patient preferences and antibiotic stewardship initiatives, given the demonstration of non-inferiority to daily antibiotic prophylaxis seen in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN70219762.

Primary trabeculectomy versus primary glaucoma eye drops for newly diagnosed advanced glaucoma: TAGS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma are at a high risk of lifetime blindness. Uncertainty exists about whether primary medical management (glaucoma eye drops) or primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) provide the best and safest patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare primary medical management with primary surgical treatment (augmented trabeculectomy) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma presenting with advanced disease in terms of health-related quality of life, clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, parallel, multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Secondary care eye services. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients presenting with advanced primary open-angle glaucoma in at least one eye, as defined by the Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson classification of severe glaucoma. INTERVENTION: Primary medical treatment - escalating medical management with glaucoma eye drops. Primary trabeculectomy treatment - trabeculectomy augmented with mitomycin C. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were mean intraocular pressure; EQ-5D-5L; Health Utilities Index 3; Glaucoma Utility Index; cost and cost-effectiveness; generic, vision-specific and disease-specific health-related quality of life; clinical effectiveness; and safety. RESULTS: A total of 453 participants were recruited. The mean age of the participants was 67 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the trabeculectomy arm and 68 years (standard deviation 12 years) in the medical management arm. Over 65% of participants were male and more than 80% were white. At 24 months, the mean difference in Visual Function Questionnaire-25 score was 1.06 (95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; p = 0.383). There was no evidence of a difference between arms in the EQ-5D-5L score, the Health Utilities Index or the Glaucoma Utility Index. At 24 months, the mean intraocular pressure was 12.40 mmHg in the trabeculectomy arm and 15.07 mmHg in the medical management arm (mean difference -2.75 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -3.84 to -1.66 mmHg; p < 0.001). Fewer types of glaucoma eye drops were required in the trabeculectomy arm. LogMAR visual acuity was slightly better in the medical management arm (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.11; p = 0.006) than in the trabeculectomy arm. There was no evidence of difference in safety between the two arms. A discrete choice experiment updated the utility values for the Glaucoma Utility Index. The within-trial economic analysis found a small increase in the mean EQ-5D-5L score (0.04) and that trabeculectomy has a higher probability of being cost-effective than medical management. The incremental cost of trabeculectomy per quality-adjusted life-year was £45,456. Therefore, at 2 years, surgery is unlikely to be considered cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. When extrapolated over a patient's lifetime in a model-based analysis, trabeculectomy, compared with medical treatment, was associated with higher costs (average £2687), a larger number of quality-adjusted life-years (average 0.28) and higher incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (average £9679). The likelihood of trabeculectomy being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained was 73%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that there was no difference between treatment arms in health-related quality of life, as measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 at 24 months. Intraocular pressure was better controlled in the trabeculectomy arm, and this may reduce visual field progression. Modelling over the patient's lifetime suggests that trabeculectomy may be cost-effective over the range of values of society's willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year. FUTURE WORK: Further follow-up of participants will allow us to estimate the long-term differences of disease progression, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56878850. 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. 25, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Glaucoma is an eye condition in which the intraocular pressure is too high, causing damage to the optic nerve and loss of vision. Patients with severe vision loss at diagnosis are the most at risk of blindness in their lifetime. Lowering pressure in the eye is the only way to prevent further vision loss. Two treatments to lower pressure are commonly used: using eye drops or having an operation known as a trabeculectomy. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgery as the first treatment. However, we do not know which treatment is best for preventing vision loss or which is safest, has the best patient experience or provides the best value for money for the NHS. Therefore, surgery is not usually carried out in the first instance and patients start with eye drops instead. This study compared whether starting treatment with eye drops affected the quality of life of patients with advanced glaucoma more or less than starting treatment with trabeculectomy. We also investigated if initial treatment with surgery and initial treatment with eye drops were equally good at controlling pressure and were equally safe, and how much each treatment cost the NHS. Every patient had an equal chance of starting treatment with surgery or eye drops and they participated in the study for 2 years. We found that quality of life was similar regardless of treatment. Those starting with surgery had lower pressure and needed far fewer types of eye drops than those starting with eye drops. Thirty-nine patients in the eye drop arm required surgery to control their glaucoma. Initial treatment with eye drops was cheaper over 2 years' follow-up. Our study suggests that, over a 2-year period, having surgery in the first instance lowers intraocular pressure more than eye drops and is equally as safe as eye drops. Although eye drops are a cheaper treatment option for the NHS, if the effects of surgery on intraocular pressure are lasting, then the increased cost may be justified.

POSNOC-POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy: a randomised controlled trial of axillary treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer who have metastases in one or two sentinel nodes.

INTRODUCTION: ACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: POSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54765244; NCT0240168Cite Now.

Primary trabeculectomy for advanced glaucoma: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (TAGS).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or primary medical treatment produces better outcomes in term of quality of life, clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 453 adults presenting with newly diagnosed advanced open angle glaucoma in at least one eye (Hodapp classification) between 3 June 2014 and 31 May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Mitomycin C augmented trabeculectomy (n=227) and escalating medical management with intraocular pressure reducing drops (n=226) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: vision specific quality of life measured with Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) at 24 months. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: general health status, glaucoma related quality of life, clinical effectiveness (intraocular pressure, visual field, visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 24 months, the mean VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medical arms were 85.4 (SD 13.8) and 84.5 (16.3), respectively (mean difference 1.06, 95% confidence interval -1.32 to 3.43; P=0.38). Mean intraocular pressure was 12.4 (SD 4.7) mm Hg for trabeculectomy and 15.1 (4.8) mm Hg for medical management (mean difference -2.8 (-3.8 to -1.7) mm Hg; P<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 88 (39%) patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 100 (44%) in the medical management arm (relative risk 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.17; P=0.37). Serious side effects were rare. CONCLUSION: Primary trabeculectomy had similar quality of life and safety outcomes and achieved a lower intraocular pressure compared with primary medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Health Technology Assessment (NIHR-HTA) Programme (project number: 12/35/38). ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN56878850.

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted training versus an enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation due to stroke: results from the RATULS randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK: Queen's Hospital, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Northwick Park Hospital, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde; and North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Participants randomised to one of three programmes provided over a 12-week period: robot-assisted training plus usual care; the EULT programme plus usual care or usual care. MAIN ECONOMIC OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean healthcare resource use; costs to the NHS and personal social services in 2018 pounds; utility scores based on EQ-5D-5L responses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness reported as incremental cost per QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: At 6 months, on average usual care was the least costly option (£3785) followed by EULT (£4451) with robot-assisted training being the most costly (£5387). The mean difference in total costs between the usual care and robot-assisted training groups (£1601) was statistically significant (p<0.001). Mean QALYs were highest for the EULT group (0.23) but no evidence of a difference (p=0.995) was observed between the robot-assisted training (0.21) and usual care groups (0.21). The incremental cost per QALY at 6 months for participants randomised to EULT compared with usual care was £74 100. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that robot-assisted training was unlikely to be cost-effective and that EULT had a 19% chance of being cost-effective at the £20 000 willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Usual care was most likely to be cost-effective at all the WTP values considered in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that neither robot-assisted training nor EULT, as delivered in this trial, were likely to be cost-effective at any of the cost per QALY thresholds considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN69371850.

Cost-effectiveness of child caries management: a randomised controlled trial (FiCTION trial).

BACKGROUND: A three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C + P), Biological with best practice prevention (B + P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA). METHODS: Data on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: A total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C + P n = 352, B + P n = 352, PA n = 354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36 months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B + P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (- 0.06; 97.5% CI: - 0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (- 0.14; 97.5% CI: - 0.29 to 0.71) in B + P compared to PA. C + P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B + P. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B + P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B + P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: the FiCTION three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Historically, lack of evidence for effective management of decay in primary teeth has caused uncertainty, but there is emerging evidence to support alternative strategies to conventional fillings, which are minimally invasive and prevention orientated. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were (1) to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three strategies for managing caries in primary teeth and (2) to assess quality of life, dental anxiety, the acceptability and experiences of children, parents and dental professionals, and caries development and/or progression. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, three-arm parallel-group, participant-randomised controlled trial. Allocation concealment was achieved by use of a centralised web-based randomisation facility hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. SETTING: This trial was set in primary dental care in Scotland, England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were NHS patients aged 3-7 years who were at a high risk of tooth decay and had at least one primary molar tooth with decay into dentine, but no pain/sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: Three interventions were employed: (1) conventional with best-practice prevention (local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal, filling placement), (2) biological with best-practice prevention (sealing-in decay, selective carious tissue removal and fissure sealants) and (3) best-practice prevention alone (dietary and toothbrushing advice, topical fluoride and fissure sealing of permanent teeth). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinical effectiveness outcomes were the proportion of children with at least one episode (incidence) and the number of episodes, for each child, of dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. The cost-effectiveness outcomes were the cost per incidence of, and cost per episode of, dental pain and/or dental sepsis avoided over the follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 72 dental practices were recruited and 1144 participants were randomised (conventional arm, n = 386; biological arm, n = 381; prevention alone arm, n = 377). Of these, 1058 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (conventional arm, n = 352; biological arm, n = 352; prevention alone arm, n = 354). The median follow-up time was 33.8 months (interquartile range 23.8-36.7 months). The proportion of children with at least one episode of pain or sepsis or both was 42% (conventional arm), 40% (biological arm) and 45% (prevention alone arm). There was no evidence of a difference in incidence or episodes of pain/sepsis between arms. When comparing the biological arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was -0.02 (97.5% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.06), which indicates, on average, a 2% reduced risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the biological arm compared with the conventional arm. Comparing the prevention alone arm with the conventional arm, the risk difference was 0.04 (97.5% confidence interval -0.04 to 0.12), which indicates, on average, a 4% increased risk of dental pain and/or dental sepsis in the prevention alone arm compared with the conventional arm. Compared with the conventional arm, there was no evidence of a difference in episodes of pain/sepsis among children in the biological arm (incident rate ratio 0.95, 97.5% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.21, which indicates that there were slightly fewer episodes, on average, in the biological arm than the conventional arm) or in the prevention alone arm (incident rate ratio 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.48, which indicates that there were slightly more episodes in the prevention alone arm than the conventional arm). Over the willingness-to-pay values considered, the probability of the biological treatment approach being considered cost-effective was approximately no higher than 60% to avoid an incidence of dental pain and/or dental sepsis and no higher than 70% to avoid an episode of pain/sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of an overall difference between the three treatment approaches for experience of, or number of episodes of, dental pain or dental sepsis or both over the follow-up period. FUTURE WORK: Recommendations for future work include exploring barriers to the use of conventional techniques for carious lesion detection and diagnosis (e.g. radiographs) and developing and evaluating suitable techniques and strategies for use in young children in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77044005. 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. 24, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: Tooth decay is common; it can lead to pain, days off school for children and days off work for parents and is a financial burden to the NHS. There is uncertainty about the best way of managing decay in young children. This trial aimed to find out whether or not there was a difference in the amount of pain and/or infection suffered by children having their decay treated with one of the following: fillings, having decay sealed in or using preventative treatment alone. Which method represented the best value was also explored. WHAT DID WE DO?: For young children with decay, the Filling Children's Teeth: Indicated Or Not? (FiCTION) trial compared the difference between fillings, sealing in the decay and using preventative treatment alone over 3 years in NHS dental practices in Scotland, England and Wales. We recruited 1144 children aged 3­7 years with one or more holes in their baby back teeth (molars), but without pain/infection, and placed them at random into one of three groups: (1) tooth numbing, removing decay and filling(s) with preventative treatment; (2) sealing in decay with fillings or caps and preventative treatment but no numbing; or (3) preventative treatment alone. WHAT DID WE FIND?: Recruitment was challenging but was achieved. There was no evidence of a difference in children's experience of pain or infection, quality of life or dental anxiety between groups. All three ways of treating decay were acceptable to children, parents and dental professionals. Sealing in with preventative treatment was most likely to be considered the best way of managing children's decay if we are willing to pay a minimum of £130 to avoid an episode of pain or infection. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: As there was no evidence of a difference between the three treatment groups in pain/infection experienced, treatment choice should continue to be based on shared decision-making between the child, parent and clinician to agree the best option for the individual child.

An intervention to improve outcomes of falls in dementia: the DIFRID mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Fall-related injuries are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in people with dementia. There is presently little evidence to guide the management of such injuries, and yet there are potentially substantial benefits to be gained if the outcomes of these injuries could be improved. This study aimed to design an appropriate new health-care intervention for people with dementia following a fall and to assess the feasibility of its delivery in the UK NHS. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not it is possible to design an intervention to improve outcomes of falls in dementia, to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the DIFRID (Developing an Intervention for Fall related Injuries in Dementia) intervention and to investigate the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial and the data collection tools needed to evaluate both the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the DIFRID intervention. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods feasibility study. A systematic review (using Cochrane methodology) and realist review [using Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) methodology] explored the existing evidence base and developed programme theories. Searches were carried out in November 2015 (updated in January 2018) for effectiveness studies and in August 2016 for economic studies. A prospective observational study identified service use via participant diary completion. Qualitative methods (semistructured interviews, focus groups and observation) were used to explore current practice, stakeholder perspectives of the health and social care needs of people with dementia following a fall, ideas for intervention and barriers to and facilitators of change. Each of the resulting data sets informed intervention development via Delphi consensus methods. Finally, a single-arm feasibility study with embedded process evaluation was conducted. SETTING: This study was set in the community. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were (1) people with dementia presenting with falls necessitating health-care attention in each setting (primary care, the community and secondary care) at three sites and their carers, (2) professionals delivering the intervention, who were responsible for training and supervision and who were members of the intervention team, (3) professionals responsible for approaching and recruiting participants and (4) carers of participants with dementia. INTERVENTIONS: This was a complex multidisciplinary therapy intervention. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists and support workers delivered up to 22 sessions of tailored activities in the home or local area of the person with dementia over a period of 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Assessment of feasibility of study procedures; (2) assessment of the acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components; and (3) assessment of the suitability and acceptability of outcome measures for people with dementia and their carers (number of falls, quality of life, fear of falling, activities of daily living, goal-setting, health-care utilisation and carer burden). RESULTS: A multidisciplinary intervention delivered in the homes of people with dementia was designed based on qualitative work, realist review and recommendations of the consensus panel. The intervention was delivered to 11 people with dementia. The study suggested that the intervention is both feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. A number of modifications were recommended to address some of the issues arising during feasibility testing. The measurement of outcome measures was successful. CONCLUSIONS: The study has highlighted the feasibility of delivering a creative, tailored, individual approach to intervention for people with dementia following a fall. Although the intervention required greater investment of time than usual practice, many staff valued the opportunity to work more closely with people with dementia and their carers. We conclude that further research is now needed to refine this intervention in the context of a pilot randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41760734 and PROSPERO CRD42016029565. 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. 23, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with dementia fall over more often than people who do not have dementia. When they fall over, they are more likely to hurt themselves. They do not get better as easily as people without dementia. After hurting themselves, people with dementia may need a lot more help in looking after themselves. They, and their carer, may not have such a good quality of life after the fall. In this study, we developed and tested a package of care to help people with dementia recover from a fall. In the first part of the study, we looked for papers about clinical trials that have tried to make things better for people with dementia who have had a fall. We found that there were very few previous clinical trials, but we found ideas for ways in which this could be improved. In the second part of the study, we found out what happens to people with dementia who ask for help after an injury due to a fall. We found that very few services were used by people with dementia who fall. We interviewed them and their carers to find out what help they thought they needed after the fall and what they thought we could do better. We also spoke to the staff in existing services to find out how they thought services for people with dementia could be improved. In the third part of the study, we asked a group of experts, people with dementia and their carers to look at the findings of the first two parts of the study. They helped us to design a care package for people with dementia after a fall. In the fourth part of the study, we practised giving the new care package to 11 people with dementia in their own homes. This was very successful and we now recommend that the package is tested further in randomised controlled clinical trials.

Developing an Intervention for Fall-Related Injuries in Dementia (DIFRID): an integrated, mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Falls in people with dementia can result in a number of physical and psychosocial consequences. However, there is limited evidence to inform how best to deliver services to people with dementia following a fall. The aim of the DIFRID study was to determine the feasibility of developing and implementing a new intervention to improve outcomes for people with dementia with fall-related injuries; this encompasses both short-term recovery and reducing the likelihood of future falls. This paper details the development of the DIFRID intervention. METHODS: The intervention was designed using an integrated, mixed-methods approach. This involved a realist synthesis of the literature and qualitative data gathered through interviews and focus groups with health and social care professionals (n = 81). An effectiveness review and further interviews and observation were also conducted and are reported elsewhere. A modified Delphi panel approach with 24 experts was then used to establish a consensus on how the findings should translate into a new intervention. After feedback from key stakeholders (n = 15) on the proposed model, the intervention was manualised and training developed. RESULTS: We identified key components of a new intervention covering three broad areas: • Ensuring that the circumstances of rehabilitation are optimised for people with dementia • Compensating for the reduced ability of people with dementia to self-manage • Equipping the workforce with the necessary skills and information to care for this patient group Consensus was achieved on 54 of 69 statements over two rounds of the Delphi surveys. The statements were used to model the intervention and finalise the accompanying manual and protocol for a feasibility study. Stakeholder feedback was generally positive and the majority of suggested intervention components were approved. The proposed outcome was a 12-week complex multidisciplinary intervention primarily based at the patient's home. CONCLUSIONS: A new intervention has been developed to improve outcomes for people with dementia following a fall requiring healthcare attention. The feasibility of this intervention is currently being tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN41760734 (16/11/2015).