An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial).

BACKGROUND: Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months' treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost-utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188-235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151-196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success.

Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB, compared with TCS alone, for localized vitiligo. METHODS: A pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (9-month treatment, 12-month follow-up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and the community, aged ≥ 5 years and with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin, were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive TCS (mometasone furoate 0·1% ointment + dummy NB-UVB), NB-UVB (NB-UVB + placebo TCS) or a combination (TCS + NB-UVB). TCS was applied once daily on alternating weeks; NB-UVB was administered on alternate days in escalating doses, adjusted for erythema. The primary outcome was treatment success at 9 months at a target patch assessed using the participant-reported Vitiligo Noticeability Scale, with multiple imputation for missing data. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: In total 517 participants were randomized to TCS (n = 173), NB-UVB (n = 169) and combination (n = 175). Primary outcome data were available for 370 (72%) participants. The proportions with target patch treatment success were 17% (TCS), 22% (NB-UVB) and 27% (combination). Combination treatment was superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 10·9% (95% confidence interval 1·0%-20·9%; P = 0·032; number needed to treat = 10). NB-UVB alone was not superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 5·2% (95% CI - 4·4% to 14·9%; P = 0·29; number needed to treat = 19). Participants using interventions with ≥ 75% expected adherence were more likely to achieve treatment success, but the effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localized grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including three with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2·5%) participants (including one with placebo ointment). CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with home-based handheld NB-UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localized vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was successful in only around one-quarter of participants.

An introduction to the methods of decision-analytic modelling used in economic evaluations for Dermatologists.

Economic evaluations are used to identify which health treatments or preventions offer the most effective use of resources, or value for money. This is achieved by identifying, measuring and valuing the inputs and outcomes of alternative interventions. These evaluations are often conducted alongside clinical trials; however, these trials may end before the outcomes of economic interest have been observed and measured. An alternative to within trial economic evaluation is to use decision modelling, which can model the cost-effectiveness of interventions over an extended time period. This paper aims to provide an overview for clinicians of the different modelling techniques used within health economic evaluations and to introduce methods for critical appraisal. The most common modelling approaches, and their associated strengths and weaknesses, were discussed. Alongside this, practical examples specific to dermatology were given. These examples include studies where the model chosen or the methods used may not have been the most appropriate. Methods for critical appraisal were also highlighted. Common modelling approaches include Decision Trees, Markov Cohort, extensions to the Markov model (Monte Carlo Simulation) and Discrete Event Simulation models. Items of the Philips Checklist were discussed in the context of performing critical appraisal. Health economic decision models are multi-faceted and can often be complex. Full critical appraisal requires clinicians' unique knowledge, which is complementary to the knowledge of health economists.

Understanding economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema is an inflammatory skin condition, with a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. Increasing pressures on resources within the National Health Service increase the importance of having good economic evidence to inform their allocation. OBJECTIVES: To educate dermatologists about economic methods with reference to currently available economic evidence on eczema. METHODS: The role of different types of economic evidence is illustrated by evidence found in a systematic literature search conducted across 12 online databases up to 22 May 2017. Primary empirical studies either reporting the results of a cost-of-illness study or evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed data abstraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Evidence tables of results were produced for narrative discussion. The reporting quality of economic evaluations was assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies (described in 80 papers) were deemed eligible. Thirty-three (42%) were judged to be economic evaluations, 12 (15%) cost analyses, six (8%) utility analyses, 26 (33%) cost-of-illness studies and one a feasibility study (1%). The calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, as well as barrier creams, had the most economic evidence available. Partially hydrolysed infant formula was the most commonly evaluated prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The current level of economic evidence for interventions aimed at preventing and treating eczema is limited compared with that available for clinical outcomes, suggesting that greater collaboration between clinicians and economists might be beneficial.

A randomized controlled trial protocol assessing the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate vs. ciclosporin in the treatment of severe atopic eczema in children: the TREatment of severe Atopic eczema Trial (TREAT).

BACKGROUND: Oral systemic immunomodulatory medication is regularly used off-licence in children with severe atopic eczema. However, there is no firm evidence regarding the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life from an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) using systemic medication in children. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether there is a difference in the speed of onset, effectiveness, side-effect profile and reduction in flares post-treatment between ciclosporin (CyA) and methotrexate (MTX), and also the cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Treatment impact on quality of life will also be examined in addition to whether FLG genotype influences treatment response. In addition, the trial studies the immune-metabolic effects of CyA and MTX. METHODS: Multicentre, parallel group, assessor-blind, pragmatic RCT of 36 weeks' duration with a 24-week follow-up period. In total, 102 children aged 2-16 years with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema, unresponsive to topical treatment will be randomized (1 : 1) to receive MTX (0·4 mg kg-1 per week) or CyA (4 mg kg-1 per day). RESULTS: The trial has two primary outcomes: change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare following treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS: This trial addresses important therapeutic questions, highlighted in systematic reviews and treatment guidelines for atopic eczema. The trial design is pragmatic to reflect current clinical practice.

Economic evidence for nonpharmacological asthma management interventions: A systematic review.

Asthma management, education and environmental interventions have been reported as cost-effective in a previous review (Pharm Pract (Granada), 2014;12:493), but methods used to estimate costs and outcomes were not discussed in detail. This review updates the previous review by providing economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of studies identified after 2012, and a detailed assessment of the methods used in all identified studies. Twelve databases were searched from 1990 to January 2016, and studies included economic evaluations, asthma subjects and nonpharmacological interventions written in English. Sixty-four studies were included. Of these, 15 were found in addition to the earlier review; 53% were rated fair in quality and 47% high. Education and self-management interventions were the most cost-effective, in line with the earlier review. Self-reporting was the most common method used to gather resource-use data, accompanied by bottom-up approaches to estimate costs. Main outcome measures were asthma-related hospitalizations (69%), quality of life (41%) and utility (38%), with AQLQ and the EQ-5D being the most common questionnaires measured prospectively at fixed time points. More rigorous costing methods are needed with a more common quality of life tool to aid greater replicability and comparability amongst asthma studies.

Measurement properties of quality-of-life measurement instruments for infants, children and adolescents with eczema: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is one of the core outcome domains identified by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative to be assessed in every eczema trial. There is uncertainty about the most appropriate QoL instrument to measure this domain in infants, children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in infants, children and adolescents with eczema. METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase, complemented by a thorough hand search of reference lists, retrieved studies on measurement properties of eczema QoL instruments for infants, children and adolescents. For all eligible studies, we judged the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological study quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results from different studies were summarized in a best-evidence synthesis and formed the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation. RESULTS: Seventeen articles, three of which were found by hand search, were included. These 17 articles reported on 24 instruments. No instrument can be recommended for use in all eczema trials because none fulfilled all required adequacy criteria. With adequate internal consistency, reliability and hypothesis testing, the U.S. version of the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS), a proxy-reported instrument, has the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. All other instruments, including all self-reported ones, lacked significant validation data. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no QoL instrument for infants, children and adolescents with eczema can be highly recommended. Future validation research should primarily focus on the CADIS, but also attempt to broaden the evidence base for the validity of self-reported instruments.

Report from the fourth international consensus meeting to harmonize core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME initiative).

This article is a report of the fourth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in Malmö, Sweden on 23-24 April 2015 (HOME IV). The aim of the meeting was to achieve consensus over the preferred outcome instruments for measuring patient-reported symptoms and quality of life for the HOME core outcome set for atopic eczema (AE). Following presentations, which included data from systematic reviews, consensus discussions were held in a mixture of whole group and small group discussions. Small groups were allocated a priori to ensure representation of different stakeholders and countries. Decisions were voted on using electronic keypads. For the patient-reported symptoms, the group agreed by vote that itch, sleep loss, dryness, redness/inflamed skin and irritated skin were all considered essential aspects of AE symptoms. Many instruments for capturing patient-reported symptoms were discussed [including the Patient-Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index, Itch Severity Scale, Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore and the Nottingham Eczema Severity Score] and, by consensus, POEM was selected as the preferred instrument to measure patient-reported symptoms. Further work is needed to determine the reliability and measurement error of POEM. Further work is also required to establish the importance of pain/soreness and the importance of collecting information regarding the intensity of symptoms in addition to their frequency. Much of the discussion on quality of life concerned the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis; however, consensus on a preferred instrument for measuring this domain could not be reached. In summary, POEM is recommended as the HOME core outcome instrument for measuring AE symptoms.

Measurement properties of adult quality-of-life measurement instruments for eczema: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has identified quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain to be evaluated in every eczema trial. It is unclear which of the existing QoL instruments is most appropriate for this domain. Thus, the aim of this review was to systematically assess the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in adult eczema. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase identifying studies on measurement properties of adult eczema QoL instruments. For all eligible studies, we assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis summarizing findings from different studies was the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation (A-D). RESULTS: A total of 15 articles reporting on 17 instruments were included. No instrument fulfilled the criteria for category A. Six instruments were placed in category B, meaning that they have the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. Three instruments had poor adequacy in at least one required adequacy criterion and were therefore put in category C. The remaining eight instruments were minimally validated and were thus placed in category D. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no QoL instrument can be recommended for use in adult eczema. The Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) are recommended for further validation research.

A cohort study of influences, health outcomes and costs of patients' health-seeking behaviour for minor ailments from primary and emergency care settings.

OBJECTIVES: To compare health-related and cost-related outcomes of consultations for symptoms suggestive of minor ailments in emergency departments (EDs), general practices and community pharmacies. DESIGN: Observational study; prospective cohort design. SETTING: EDs (n=2), general practices (n=6) and community pharmacies (n=10) in a mix of rural/urban and deprived/affluent areas across North East Scotland and East Anglia. Participants Adults (≥18 years) presenting between 09:00 and 18:00 (Monday-Friday) in general practices and 09:00-18:00 (Monday-Saturday) in pharmacies and EDs with ≥1 of the following: musculoskeletal pain; eye discomfort; gastrointestinal disturbance; or upper respiratory tract-related symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Participants completed three questionnaires: baseline (prior to index consultation); satisfaction with index consultation and follow-up (2 weeks after index consultation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom resolution, quality of life, costs, satisfaction and influences on care-seeking behaviour. RESULTS: 377 patients participated, recruited from EDs (81), general practices (162) and community pharmacies (134). The 2-week response rate was 70% (264/377). Symptom resolution was similar across all three settings: ED (37.3%), general practice (35.7%) and pharmacy (44.3%). Mean overall costs per consultation were significantly lower for pharmacy (£29.30 (95% CI £21.60 to £37.00)) compared with general practice (£82.34 (95% CI £63.10 to £101.58)) and ED (£147.09 (95% CI £125.32 to £168.85)). Satisfaction varied across settings and by measure used. Compared with pharmacy and general practice use, ED use was significantly (p<0.001) associated with first episode and short duration of symptom(s), as well as higher levels of perceived seriousness and urgency for seeking care. Convenience of location was the most common reason for choice of consultation setting. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest similar health-related outcomes and substantially lower costs with pharmacy consultations for minor ailments. Effective strategies are now needed to shift demand for minor ailment management away from EDs and general practices to the community pharmacy setting.

A study of the safety and harms of antidepressant drugs for older people: a cohort study using a large primary care database.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to establish the relative safety and balance of risks for antidepressant treatment in older people. The study objectives were to (1) determine relative and absolute risks of predefined adverse events in older people with depression, comparing classes of antidepressant drugs [tricyclic and related antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and other antidepressants] and commonly prescribed individual drugs with non-use of antidepressant drugs; (2) directly compare the risk of adverse events for SSRIs with TCAs; (3) determine associations with dose and duration of antidepressant medication; (4) describe patterns of antidepressant use in older people with depression; and (5) estimate costs of antidepressant medication and primary care visits. DESIGN: A cohort study of patients aged 65 years and over diagnosed with depression. SETTING: The study was based in 570 general practices in the UK supplying data to the QResearch database. PARTICIPANTS: Patients diagnosed with a new episode of depression between the ages of 65 and 100 years, from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2007. Participants were followed up until 31 December 2008. INTERVENTIONS: The exposure of interest was treatment with antidepressant medication. Antidepressant drugs were grouped into the major classes and commonly prescribed individual drugs were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There were 13 predefined outcome measures: all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, suicide, attempted suicide/self-harm, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), falls, fractures, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, epilepsy/seizures, road traffic accidents, adverse drug reactions and hyponatraemia. RESULTS: In total, 60,746 patients were included in the study cohort. Of these, 54,038 (89.0%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant during follow-up. The associations with the adverse outcomes were significantly different between the classes of antidepressant drugs for seven outcomes. SSRIs were associated with the highest adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for falls [1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 1.73] and hyponatraemia (1.52, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.75), and the group of other antidepressants was associated with the highest HRs for all-cause mortality (1.66, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.77), attempted suicide/self-harm (5.16, 95% CI 3.90 to 6.83), stroke/TIA (1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55), fracture (1.63, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.83) and epilepsy/seizures (2.24, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.15) compared with when antidepressants were not being used. TCAs did not have the highest HR for any of the outcomes. There were also significantly different associations between the individual drugs for seven outcomes, with trazodone, mirtazapine and venlafaxine associated with the highest rates for several of these outcomes. The mean incremental cost (for all antidepressant prescriptions) ranged between £51.58 (amitriptyline) and £641.18 (venlafaxine) over the 5-year post-diagnosis period. CONCLUSIONS: This study found associations between use of antidepressant drugs and a number of adverse events in older people. There was no evidence that SSRIs or drugs in the group of other antidepressants were associated with a reduced risk of any of the adverse outcomes compared with TCAs; however, they may be associated with an increased risk for certain outcomes. Among individual drugs trazodone, mirtazapine and venlafaxine were associated with the highest rates for some outcomes. Indication bias and residual confounding may explain some of the study findings. The risks of prescribing antidepressants need to be weighed against the potential benefits of these drugs. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of eczema in children: the Softened Water Eczema Trial (SWET).

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether installation of an ion-exchange water softener in the home could improve atopic eczema in children and, if so, to establish its likely cost and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: An observer-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of 12 weeks duration followed by a 4-week observational period. Eczema was assessed by research nurses blinded to intervention at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary outcome was analysed as intent-to-treat, using the randomised allocation rather than actual treatment received. A secondary per-protocol analysis excluded participants who failed to receive their allocated treatment and who were deemed to be protocol violators. SETTING: Secondary and primary care referral centres in England (UK) serving a variety of ethnic and social groups and including children living in both urban and periurban homes. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and thirty-six children (aged 6 months to 16 years) with moderate/severe atopic eczema, living in homes in England supplied by hard water (≥ 200 mg/l calcium carbonate). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either installation of an ion-exchange water softener plus usual eczema care (group A) for 12 weeks or usual eczema care alone (group B) for 12 weeks. This was followed by a 4-week observational period, during which water softeners were switched off/removed from group A homes and installed in group B homes. Standard procedure was to soften all water in the home, but to provide mains (hard) water at a faucet-style tap in the kitchen for drinking and cooking. Participants were therefore exposed to softened water for bathing and washing of clothes, but continued to drink mains (hard) water. Usual care was defined as any treatment that the child was currently using in order to control his or her eczema. New treatment regimens used during the trial period were documented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the difference between group A and group B in mean change in disease severity at 12 weeks compared with baseline, as measured using the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) score. This is an objective severity scale completed by blinded observers (research nurses) unaware of the allocated intervention. Secondary outcomes included use of topical medications, night-time movement, patient-reported eczema severity and a number of quality of life measures. A planned subgroup analysis was conducted, based on participants with at least one mutation in the gene encoding filaggrin (a protein in the skin thought to be important for normal skin barrier function). RESULTS: Target recruitment was achieved (n = 336). The analysed population included 323 children who had complete data. The mean change in primary outcome (SASSAD) at 12 weeks was -5.0 [standard deviation (SD) 8.8] for the water softener group (group A) and -5.7 (SD 9.8) for the usual care group (group B) [mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.37 to 2.69, p = 0.53]. The per-protocol analysis supported the main analysis, and there was no evidence that the treatment effect varied between children with and without mutations in the filaggrin gene. No between-group differences were found in the three secondary outcomes that were assessed blindly (use of topical medications; night-time movement; proportion showing reasonable, good or excellent improvement). Small, but statistically significant, differences in favour of the water softener were found in three of the secondary outcomes that were assessed by participants [Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM); well-controlled weeks (WCWs); Dermatitis Family Index (DFI)]. The results of the economic evaluation, and the uncertainty surrounding them, suggest that ion-exchange water softeners are unlikely to be a cost-effective intervention for children with atopic eczema from an NHS perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Water softeners provided no additional benefit to usual care in this study population. Small, but statistically significant, differences were found in some secondary outcomes as reported by parents, but it is likely that such improvements were the result of response bias. Whether or not the wider benefits of installing a water softener in the home are sufficient to justify the purchase of a softener is something for individual householders to consider on a case-by-case basis. This trial demonstrated overwhelming demand for non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of eczema, and this is something that should be considered when prioritising future research in the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71423189. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 15, No. 8. See the HTA programme website for further project information. Results of this trial are also published at www.plosmedicine.org.

Community falls prevention for people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a service to prevent falls in the community would help reduce the rate of falls in older people who call an emergency ambulance when they fall but are not taken to hospital. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community covered by four primary care trusts, England. PARTICIPANTS: 204 adults aged more than 60 living at home or in residential care who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance but were not taken to hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Referral to community fall prevention services or standard medical and social care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of falls over 12 months, ascertained from monthly diaries. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Barthel index, Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, and falls efficacy scale at baseline and by postal questionnaire at 12 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: 102 people were allocated to each group. 99 (97%) participants in the intervention group received the intervention. Falls diaries were analysed for 88.6 person years in the intervention group and 84.5 person years in the control group. The incidence rates of falls per year were 3.46 in the intervention group and 7.68 in the control group (incidence rate ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58, P<0.001). The intervention group achieved higher scores on the Barthel index and Nottingham extended activities of daily living and lower scores on the falls efficacy scale (all P<0.05) at the 12 month follow-up. The number of times an emergency ambulance was called because of a fall was significantly different during follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.92, P=0.018). CONCLUSION: A service to prevent falls in the community reduced the fall rate and improved clinical outcome in the high risk group of older people who call an emergency ambulance after a fall but are not taken to hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67535605.

Second-eye cataract surgery in elderly women: a cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-eye cataract surgery for older women with minimal visual dysfunction in the eye to be operated on from a Health and Personal Social Services perspective, compared to waiting list controls who had already undergone first-eye cataract surgery. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside a randomized controlled trial of second-eye cataract surgery in secondary care ophthalmology clinics. A total of 239 women over 70 years old with one unoperated cataract were randomized to cataract surgery (expedited, approximately 4 weeks) or control (routine surgery, 12 months wait). Outcomes were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with health-related quality of life estimated using the EuroQol EQ-5D. RESULTS: The operated group had costs which were, on average, pound646 more than the control group (95% confidence interval, pound16-1276, P<0.04) and had a mean QALY gain of 0.015 (95% confidence interval, -0.039 to 0.068, P=0.59) per patient over 1 year. Therefore, the incremental cost-utility ratio was pound44,263 over the 1-year trial period. In an analysis modelling costs and benefits over patients' expected lifetime, the incremental cost per QALY was pound17,299, under conservative assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Second-eye cataract surgery is not likely to be cost-effective in the short term for those with mild visual dysfunction pre-operation. In the long term, second-eye cataract surgery appears to be cost-effective unless carer costs are included.

A multicentre randomized controlled trial of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of eczema in children: protocol for the Softened Water Eczema Trial (SWET) (ISRCTN: 71423189).

BACKGROUND: There is epidemiological evidence linking increased water hardness with increased eczema prevalence. A number of plausible mechanisms can be forwarded to suggest why hard water could exacerbate eczema. The most likely explanation is increased soap usage in hard water areas, the deposits of which can cause skin irritation in individuals with eczema. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of eczema in children. PATIENTS/METHODS: Three hundred and ten children aged 6 months to 16 years, with moderate to severe eczema. The children must live in hard water areas (>or= 200 mg L(-1) of calcium carbonate) and have a home that is suitable for the installation of a water softener. This is a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial of 12 weeks duration followed by a 4-week cross-over period. RESULTS/ANALYSIS PLAN: PRIMARY OUTCOME: difference in the mean change in disease severity (Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis score) at 12 weeks compared with baseline. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: (i) proportion of time spent moving during the night; (ii) self-reported global changes in eczema severity; (iii) amount of topical treatment used; (iv) Patient Oriented Eczema Measure; (v) number of totally controlled and well controlled weeks; (vi) impact on health-related quality of life for the child (EQ-5D) and the family (Dermatitis Family Impact questionnaire); and (vii) cost-effectiveness. It is planned that recruitment will be completed by the end of 2008 and results will be available towards the end of 2009.

The relationship between body mass index and health-related quality of life: comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS and SF-6D.

BACKGROUND: No other studies have compared the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and health-related quality of life (HRQL) on more than one utility measure. Estimating the HRQL effects of obesity on a (common) utility scale enables the relative cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to alleviate obesity to be estimated. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between BMI and HRQL according to the EQ-5D, EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and SF-6D. METHODS: Patients aged >/=45 years at one UK general practice were asked to complete the EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, SF-36 questionnaire (used to derive the SF-6D), and information on their characteristics and co-morbidity. Body mass index was categorized according to the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Regression analysis was used to compare the HRQL of normal BMI patients to the HRQL of patients in other BMI categories, while controlling for patient characteristics and co-morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 1865 patients responded (67%), mean BMI 26.0 kg/m(2), 16% obese (BMI>/=30). Patients with back pain, hip pain, knee pain, asthma, diabetes or osteoarthritis were also significantly more likely to be obese. After controlling for other factors, compared to normal BMI patients, obese patients had a lower HRQL according to the EQ-5D (P<0.01), EQ-VAS (P<0.001) and SF-6D (P<0.001). Pre-obese patients were not estimated to have a significantly lower HRQL, and underweight patients were only estimated to have a significantly lower HRQL according to the SF-6D. These results arose because, on the EQ-5D, obese patients were found to have significantly more problems with mobility and pain, compared to physical functioning, social functioning and role limitations on the SF-6D. Whereas, according to the SF-6D, underweight patients had significantly more problems on the dimension of role limitation. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D, EQ-VAS and SF-6D were in agreement that, relative to a normal BMI, obesity is associated with a lower HRQL, even after controlling for patient characteristics and co-morbidity. These three measures are thereby sensitive to the HRQL effects of obesity and can be used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to alleviate obesity.

Investigation of the effect of a countywide protected learning time scheme on prescribing rates of ramipril: interrupted time series study.

BACKGROUND: Protected learning time (PLT) schemes have been set up in primary care across the UK. There is little published evidence of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of a PLT intervention for general practice to increase prescribing of ramipril for prevention of cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, interrupted time series. SETTING: Lincolnshire, UK. METHODS: Prescribing data were analysed one year before and after the education for change in rate of increase of prescribing of ramipril, whether change in prescribing was related to postulated explanatory variables and to determine intervention costs. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the rate of change of ramipril (10 mg) prescription items 12 months after compared with before the educational intervention. Secondary outcomes included cost. RESULTS: Ramipril prescribing at therapeutic dosage increased significantly (odds ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.07-1.93) following education by 52,345 items (31,132 items at 10 mg) at a cost of pound 292k to pound 460k depending on formulation. This occurred despite a background of secular change. Most practices were represented by GPs, nurses or both during the education. Single-handed GPs were less likely to attend. Practices showed considerable variation in response to the educational intervention. The only predictor of whether practices increased in prescribing rate after the education was whether a practice nurse had undertaken specific diabetes training. Total list size, dispensing, training or single-handed status and GP attendance did not predict a change in prescribing. CONCLUSION: PLT schemes can contribute to beneficial changes in prescribing across a large geographical area.

Estimating time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by families attending a pediatric cochlear implant programme.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to estimate time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by families attending a pediatric cochlear implant programme. In addition, qualitative data examine the intangible costs faced by families. METHODS: Data was collected during semi-structured face-to-face interviews with parents of children with a cochlear implant attending a clinic visit at Nottingham Cochlear Implantation Programme (NPCIP), UK. Information supplied included socio-demographic characteristics, mode of travel, out-of-pocket expenses, time foregone, and details of companions. Quantitative data was stored and analysed in SPSS version 11.5. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen face-to-face interviews were conducted with parents of children implanted for between 1 month and 13 years. Time and out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for those in the first 2 years of the programme, mean UK pound 3090 per annum compared to UK pound 2159 per annum for those in years >2-5 and UK pound 1815 per annum for those in years >5 (P<0.001). The biggest component of this was time costs, although the sensitivity analysis revealed that these were also most variable depending on the methods used to estimate them. The largest out-of-pocket cost incurred by families was travel costs which accounted for 44%, although 16% of families received some financial help with travel costs. The qualitative findings are consistent with these findings, also showing that over time the financial and intangible costs incurred as a result of cochlear implantation decline. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to obtain primary data on the time and out-of-pocket costs incurred by families attending a pediatric cochlear implant programme in the UK. It finds that these costs are greatest for those families in the first 2 years of the programme and/or who live furthest from the programme.