Measuring the cost-effectiveness of treating rectovaginal and vesicovaginal fistulas: A multicenter global study by the Fistula Foundation.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery for obstetric fistula is a highly effective treatment to restore continence and improve quality of life. However, a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of this procedure limits prioritization of this essential treatment. This study measures the effectiveness of fistula surgeries using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. METHODS: In 2021 and 2022, the Fistula Foundation funded 20 179 fistula surgeries and related procedures at 143 hospitals among 27 countries. We calculated DALYs averted specifically for vesicovaginal fistula and rectovaginal fistula procedure types (n = 13 235 surgeries) by using disability weights from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study. We based cost calculations on direct treatment expenses, including medical supplies, health provider fees, and preoperative and postoperative care. We measured effectiveness using data on the risk of permanent disability, country-specific average life spans, and treatment outcomes. RESULTS: The total treatment cost was $7.6 million, and a total of 131 433 DALYs were averted. Thus, the cost per DALY averted-the cost to restore 1 year of healthy life-was $58. For this analysis, we took a cautious approach and weighted only surgeries that resulted in a closed fistula with restored continence. We calculated DALYs averted by country. Limitations of the study include data entry errors inherent in patient logs and lack of long-term outcomes. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that obstetric fistula surgery, along with having a significant positive impact on maternal health outcomes, is highly cost-effective in comparison with other interventions. The study therefore highlights the benefits of prioritizing fistula treatment as part of the global agenda for maternal health care.

Cost-consequence analysis of ambulatory clinic- and home-based multidrug-resistant tuberculosis management models in Eswatini.

BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-consequence of a home-based multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) model of care, based on task-shifting of directly observed therapy (DOT) and MDR-TB injection administration to lay health workers, to a routine clinic-based strategy within an established national TB programme in Eswatini. METHODS: Data on costs and effects of the two ambulatory models of MDR-TB care was collected using documentary data and interviews in the Lubombo and Shiselweni regions of Eswatini. Health system, patient and caregiver costs were assessed in 2014 in US$ using standard methods. Cost-consequence was calculated as the cost per patient successfully treated. RESULTS: In the clinic-based and home-based models of care, respectively, a total of 96 and 106 MDR-TB patients were enrolled in 2014, with treatment success rates of 67.8% and 82.1%. Health system costs per patient treated were slightly lower in the home-based strategy (US$19 598) compared to the clinic-based model (US$20 007). The largest costs in both models were for inpatient care, administration of DOT and injectable treatment, and drugs. Costs incurred by patients and caregivers were considerably higher in the clinic-based model of care due to the higher direct travel costs to the nearest clinic to receive DOT and injections daily. In total, MDR patients in the clinic-based strategy incurred average costs of US$670 compared to US$275 for MDR-TB patients in the home-based model. MDR-TB patients in the home-based programme, where DOT and injections was provided in their homes, only incurred out-of-pocket travel expenses for monthly outpatient treatment monitoring visits averaging US$100. The cost per successfully treated patient was US$31 106 and US$24 157 in the clinic-based and home-based models of care, respectively. The analysis showed that, in addition to the health benefits, direct and indirect costs for patients and their caregivers were lower in the home-based care model. CONCLUSION: The home-based strategy used less resources and generated substantial health and economic benefits, particularly for patients and their caregivers, and decision makers can consider this approach as an alternative to expand and optimise MDR-TB control in resource-limited settings. Further research to understand the appropriate mix of treatment support components that are most important for optimal clinical and public health outcomes in the ambulatory home-based model of MDR-TB care is necessary.

Cost-effectiveness and impact on infections and associated antimicrobial resistance of 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in US children previously immunized with PCV13.

AIM: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV20) to prevent pneumococcal disease. In the context of routine PCV20 vaccination, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness and public health and economic impact of a PCV20 catch-up program and estimated the number of antibiotic prescriptions and antibiotic-resistant infections averted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A population-based, multi-cohort, decision-analytic Markov model was developed using parameters consistent with previous PCV20 cost-effectiveness analyses. In the intervention arm, children aged 14-59 months who previously completed PCV13 vaccination received a supplemental dose of PCV20. In the comparator arm, no catch-up PCV20 dose was given. The direct and indirect benefits of vaccination were captured over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: A PCV20 catch-up program would prevent 5,469 invasive pneumococcal disease cases, 50,286 hospitalized pneumonia cases, 218,240 outpatient pneumonia cases, 582,302 otitis media cases, and 1,800 deaths, representing a net gain of 30,014 life years and 55,583 quality-adjusted life years. Furthermore, 720,938 antibiotic prescriptions and 256,889 antibiotic-resistant infections would be averted. A catch-up program would result in cost savings of $800 million. These results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A PCV20 catch-up program could prevent pneumococcal infections, antibiotic prescriptions, and antimicrobial-resistant infections and would be cost-saving in the US.

Clinical performance of AI-integrated risk assessment pooling reveals cost savings even at high prevalence of COVID-19.

Individual testing of samples is time- and cost-intensive, particularly during an ongoing pandemic. Better practical alternatives to individual testing can significantly decrease the burden of disease on the healthcare system. Herein, we presented the clinical validation of Segtnan™ on 3929 patients. Segtnan™ is available as a mobile application entailing an AI-integrated personalized risk assessment approach with a novel data-driven equation for pooling of biological samples. The AI was selected from a comparison between 15 machine learning classifiers (highest accuracy = 80.14%) and a feed-forward neural network with an accuracy of 81.38% in predicting the rRT-PCR test results based on a designed survey with minimal clinical questions. Furthermore, we derived a novel pool-size equation from the pooling data of 54 published original studies. The results demonstrated testing capacity increase of 750%, 60%, and 5% at prevalence rates of 0.05%, 22%, and 50%, respectively. Compared to Dorfman's method, our novel equation saved more tests significantly at high prevalence, i.e., 28% (p = 0.006), 40% (p = 0.00001), and 66% (p = 0.02). Lastly, we illustrated the feasibility of the Segtnan™ usage in clinically complex settings like emergency and psychiatric departments.

Investigating the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Telemonitoring patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can improve their care management. However, the results of cost-effectiveness studies are heterogeneous. Therefore, it is still a matter of debate whether telemonitoring is worth the investment. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring patients with CIEDs, focusing on its key drivers, and the impact of the varying perspectives. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit. The search was completed on July 7, 2022. Studies were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: patients had a CIED, comparison with standard care, and inclusion of health economic evaluations (eg, cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses). Only complete and peer-reviewed studies were included, and no year limits were applied. The exclusion criteria included studies with partial economic evaluations, systematic reviews or reports, and studies without standard care as a control group. Besides general study characteristics, the following outcome measures were extracted: impact on total cost or income, cost or income drivers, cost or income drivers per patient, cost or income drivers as a percentage of the total cost impact, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost-utility ratios. Quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 15 cost-effectiveness analyses were included. All studies were performed in Western countries, mainly Europe, and had primarily a male participant population. Of the 15 studies, 3 (20%) calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, 1 (7%) the cost-utility ratio, and 11 (73%) the health and cost impact of telemonitoring. In total, 73% (11/15) of the studies indicated that telemonitoring of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy ICDs was cost-effective and cost-saving, both from a health care and patient perspective. Cost-effectiveness results for telemonitoring of patients with pacemakers were inconclusive. The key drivers for cost reduction from a health care perspective were hospitalizations and scheduled in-office visits. Hospitalization costs were reduced by up to US $912 per patient per year. Scheduled in-office visits included up to 61% of the total cost reduction. Key drivers for cost reduction from a patient perspective were loss of income, cost for scheduled in-office visits and transport. Finally, of the 15 studies, 8 (52%) reported improved quality of life, with statistically significance in only 1 (13%) study (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: From a health care and patient perspective, telemonitoring of patients with an ICD or a cardiac resynchronization therapy ICD is a cost-effective and cost-saving alternative to standard care. Inconclusive results were found for patients with pacemakers. However, telemonitoring can lead to a decrease in providers' income, mainly due to a lack of reimbursement. Introducing appropriate reimbursement could make telemonitoring sustainable for providers while still being cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022322334; https://tinyurl.com/puunapdr.

The N-LVA Study: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) for patients with cancer who suffer from chronic peripheral lymphoedema - study protocol of a multicentre, randomised sham-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related lymphoedema is one of the most debilitating side-effects of cancer treatment with an overall incidence of 15.5%. Patients may suffer from a variety of symptoms, possibly resulting in a diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A microsurgical technique known as lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) might be a promising treatment option. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether LVA is effective and cost-effective compared with sham surgery in improving the HRQoL. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised sham-controlled trial conducted in three university hospitals in the Netherlands. The study population comprises 110 patients over the age of 18 years with unilateral, peripheral cancer-related lymphoedema, including 70 patients with upper limb lymphoedema and 40 patients with lower limb lymphoedema. A total of 55 patients will undergo the LVA operation, while the remaining 55 will undergo sham surgery. The follow-up will be at least 24 months. Patients are encouraged to complete the follow-up by explaining the importance of the study. Furthermore, patients may benefit from regular monitoring moments for their lymphoedema. The primary outcome is the HRQoL. The secondary outcomes are the limb circumference, excess limb volume, changes in conservative therapy, postoperative complications, patency of the LVA and incremental cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Maastricht University Medical Center on 20 September 2023 (NL84169.068.23). The results will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06082349.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation after surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder: protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with integrated Quintet Recruitment Intervention (RaCeR 2).

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high number of operations and surgical advancement, rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair has not progressed for over 20 years. The traditional cautious approach might be contributing to suboptimal outcomes. Our aim is to assess whether individualised (early) patient-directed rehabilitation results in less shoulder pain and disability at 12 weeks after surgical repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff compared with current standard (delayed) rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair (RaCeR 2) study is a pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase. It has a parallel group design with 1:1 allocation ratio, full health economic evaluation and quintet recruitment intervention. Adults awaiting arthroscopic surgical repair of a full-thickness tear are eligible to participate. On completion of surgery, 638 participants will be randomised. The intervention (individualised early patient-directed rehabilitation) includes advice to the patient to remove their sling as soon as they feel able, gradually begin using their arm as they feel able and a specific exercise programme. Sling removal and movement is progressed by the patient over time according to agreed goals and within their own pain and tolerance. The comparator (standard rehabilitation) includes advice to the patient to wear the sling for at least 4 weeks and only to remove while eating, washing, dressing or performing specific exercises. Progression is according to specific timeframes rather than as the patient feels able. The primary outcome measure is the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index total score at 12-week postrandomisation. The trial timeline is 56 months in total, from September 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11499185.

Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. Objectives: We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. Design: We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. Setting: NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Participants: Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Interventions: Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Main outcome measures: Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. Results: We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Limitations: Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Future work: Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who are admitted to hospital are at risk of blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Patients are often given low doses of blood-thinning drugs to reduce this risk. However, these drugs can cause side effects, such as bleeding. Hospitals currently use complex risk assessment models (risk scores, which usually include patient, disease, mobility and intervention factors) to determine the individual risk of blood clots and identify people most likely to benefit from blood-thinning drugs. There are a lot of different risk scores and we do not know which one is best. We also do not know how these scores compare to each other or whether using scores to decide who should get blood-thinning drugs provides good value for money to the NHS. We reviewed all previous studies of risk scores. We found that they did not predict blood clots very well and we could not recommend one score over another. We then created a mathematical model to simulate the use of blood-thinning drugs in people admitted to hospital. The model suggested that giving blood-thinning drugs to everyone who could have them would probably provide the best value for money, in medical patients. Our findings were the same, but less certain, for surgical patients. We also collected information from four NHS hospitals to explore possibilities for future research. Our work showed that routinely collected electronic data on blood clots and bleeding events is not very accurate and that using different scores could result in variable use of blood-thinning medications. Our findings suggest that it may be better value to the NHS and better for patients if we were to offer blood-thinning medications to everyone on admission to hospital, without using any risk score. However, this approach needs further research to ensure it is safe and effective. Such research would not be able to rely on routine electronic data to identify blood clots or bleeding events, in isolation.

Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND Economic evaluation of the testing strategies to control transmission and monitor the severity of COVID-19 after the pandemic is essential. This study aimed to review the economic evaluation of COVID-19 tests and to construct a model with outcomes in terms of cost and test acceptability for surveillance in the post-pandemic period in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS We performed the systematic review following PRISMA guidelines through MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We included the relevant studies that reported the economic evaluation of COVID-19 tests for surveillance. Also, we input current probability, sensitivity, and specificity for COVID-19 surveillance in the post-pandemic period. RESULTS A total of 104 articles met the eligibility criteria, and 8 articles were reviewed and assessed for quality. The specificity and sensitivity of COVID-19 screening tests were reported as 80% to 90% and 40% to 90%, respectively. The target population presented a mortality rate between 0.2% and 19.2% in the post-pandemic period. The implementation model of COVID-19 screening tests for surveillance with a cost mean for molecular and antigen tests was US$ 46.64 (min-max US $0.25-$105.39) and US $6.15 (min-max US $2-$10), respectively. CONCLUSIONS For the allocation budget for the COVID-19 surveillance test, it is essential to consider the incidence and mortality of the post-pandemic period in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. A robust method to evaluate outcomes is needed to prevent increasing COVID-19 incidents earlier.

The economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in United Arab Emirates.

AIMS: Our study aims to provide an enhanced comprehension of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) burden in United Arab Emirates (UAE), over a five-year period from payer and societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was established to simulate the economic consequences of SLE among UAE population. It included four health states: i) the three phenotypes of SLE, representing mild, moderate, and severe states, and ii) death. Clinical parameters were retrieved from previous literature and validated using the Delphi panel-the most common clinical practice within the Emirati healthcare system. We calculated the disease management, transient events, and indirect costs by macro costing. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The estimated number of SLE patients in our study was 13,359. The number of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes was 3,914, 8,109, and 1,336, respectively. Disease management costs, including treatment of each phenotype and disease follow-up, were AED 2 billion ($0.89 billion), whereas the costs of transient events (infections, flares, and consequences of SLE-related organ damage) were AED 1 billion ($0.44 billion). The productivity loss costs among adult-employed patients with SLE in the UAE were estimated at AED 7 billion ($3.1 billion). The total SLE cost over five years from payer and societal perspectives is estimated at AED 3 ($1.3 billion) and 10 billion ($4.4 billion), respectively. Additionally, the costs per patient per year from the payer and societal perspectives were AED 45,960 ($20,610) and AED 148,468 ($66,578), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the burden of SLE in the UAE is enormous, mainly because of the costly complications and productivity loss. More awareness should be created to limit the progression of SLE and reduce the occurrence of flares, necessitating further economic evaluations of novel treatments that could help reduce the economic consequences of SLE in the UAE.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

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.

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to standard care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the CONCOR-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings. METHODS: Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population. RESULTS: 940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078. DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Clinical effectiveness of the psychological therapy Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy in addition to usual care compared with assessment-enhanced usual care alone: a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are common in children and young people with chronic health conditions, but many of those in need do not access evidence-based psychological treatments. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of integrated mental health treatment for children and young people with epilepsy, a common chronic health condition known to be associated with a particularly high rate of co-occurring mental health difficulties. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of participants aged 3-18 years, attending epilepsy clinics across England and Northern Ireland who met diagnostic criteria for a common mental health disorder. Participants were randomised (1:1; using an independent web-based system) to receive the Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy (MICE) in addition to usual care, or assessment-enhanced usual care alone (control). Children and young people in both groups received a full diagnostic mental health assessment. MICE was a modular psychological intervention designed to treat common mental health conditions in children and young people using evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behaviour therapy and behavioural parenting strategies. Usual care for mental health disorders varied by site but typically included referral to appropriate services. Participants, along with their caregivers, and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation but statisticians were masked until the point of analysis. The primary outcome, analysed by modified intention-to-treat, was the parent-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 6 months post-randomisation. The study is complete and registered with ISRCTN (57823197). FINDINGS: 1401 young people were potentially deemed eligible for study inclusion. Following the exclusion of 531 young people, 870 participants were assessed for eligibility and completed the SDQ, and 480 caregivers provided consent for study inclusion between May 20, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022. Between Aug 28, 2019, and Feb 21, 2022, 334 participants (mean ages 10·5 years [SD 3·6] in the MICE group vs 10·3 [4·0] in control group at baseline) were randomly assigned to an intervention using minimisation balanced by age, primary mental health disorder, diagnosis of intellectual disability, and autistic spectrum disorder at baseline. 168 (50%) of the participants were female and 166 (50%) were male. 166 participants were randomly assigned to the MICE group and 168 were randomly assigned to the control group. At 6 months, the mean SDQ difficulties for the 148 participants in the MICE group was 17·6 (SD 6·3) and 19·6 (6·1) for the 148 participants in the control group. The adjusted effect of MICE was -1·7 (95% CI -2·8 to -0·5; p=0·0040; Cohen's d, 0·3). 14 (8%) patients in the MICE group experienced at least one serious adverse event compared with 24 (14%) in the control group. 68% percent of serious adverse events (50 events) were admission due to seizures. INTERPRETATION: MICE was superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving symptoms of emotional and behavioural difficulties in young people with epilepsy and common mental health disorders. The trial therefore shows that mental health comorbidities can be effectively and safely treated by a variety of clinicians, utilising an integrated intervention across ages and in the context of intellectual disability and autism. The evidence from this trial suggests that such a model should be fully embedded in epilepsy services and serves as a model for other chronic health conditions in young people. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and Epilepsy Research UK Endeavour Project Grant.

Cost-effectiveness of quality improvement intervention to reduce time between CT-detection and ureteroscopic laser fragmentation in acute symptomatic ureteric stones management.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess clinical and cost effectiveness of emergency ureteroscopic laser fragmentation of urinary stones causing symptoms or obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 100 consecutive patients with an average (median) age 55.6 (57.5) years and average (median) stone size of 8.2 mm (± 7 mm) between October 2018 and December 2021 who underwent emergency ureteroscopy and laser fragmentation formed the study cohort as part of a clinical service quality improvement. Primary outcome was single procedure stone-free rate and cost-effectiveness. The secondary outcomes were complications, re-admission and re-intervention. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of emergency ureteroscopy with laser fragmentation (EUL) and emergency temporary stenting followed by delayed ureteroscopy with laser fragmentation (DUL) using our results and success rates for modelling. RESULTS: Single procedure stone-free rates (SFR) for EUL and DUL were 85%. The re-intervention rate, re-admission and complication rates of the study cohort (EUL) were 9%, 18%, and 4%, respectively, compared to 15%, 20%, and 5%, respectively for the control cohort (DUL). The decision analysis modelling demonstrated that the EUL treatment option was more cost-efficient, averting £2868 (€3260) per patient for the UK health sector. Total cost of delayed intervention was £7783 (€8847) for DUL in contrast to £4915 (€5580) for EUL. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of quality improvement project based on a reduction in CT detection-to-laser fragmentation time interval in acute ureteric obstruction or symptoms caused by stones had similar clinical effectiveness compared to delayed ureteroscopic management, but more cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic population at high risk of diabetes: an economic evaluation of the 48-month PROPELS randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) is protective against type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, data on pragmatic long-term interventions to reduce the risk of developing T2D via increased PA are lacking. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of a pragmatic PA intervention in a multiethnic population at high risk of T2D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adapted the School for Public Health Research diabetes prevention model, using the PROPELS trial data and analyses of the NAVIGATOR trial. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each intervention (Walking Away (WA) and Walking Away Plus (WA+)) versus usual care and compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's willingness-to-pay of £20 000-£30 000 per QALY gained. We conducted scenario analyses on the outcomes of the PROPELS trial data and a threshold analysis to determine the change in step count that would be needed for the interventions to be cost-effective. RESULTS: Estimated lifetime costs for usual care, WA, and WA+ were £22 598, £23 018, and £22 945, respectively. Estimated QALYs were 9.323, 9.312, and 9.330, respectively. WA+ was estimated to be more effective and cheaper than WA. WA+ had an ICER of £49 273 per QALY gained versus usual care. In none of our scenario analyses did either WA or WA+ have an ICER below £20 000 per QALY gained. Our threshold analysis suggested that a PA intervention costing the same as WA+ would have an ICER below £20 000/QALY if it were to achieve an increase in step count of 500 steps per day which was 100% maintained at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: We found that neither WA nor WA+ was cost-effective at a limit of £20 000 per QALY gained. Our threshold analysis showed that interventions to increase step count can be cost-effective at this limit if they achieve greater long-term maintenance of effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registration: ISRCTN83465245: The PRomotion Of Physical activity through structuredEducation with differing Levels of ongoing Support for those with pre-diabetes (PROPELS)https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN83465245.

The impact of indirect benefits (reduced travel time, fuel use and emissions) in cost benefit analysis of road safety countermeasures.

OBJECTIVE: In cost benefit analysis of road safety countermeasures, all relevant effects on safety, travel time and environment have a substantial impact during economic appraisal. However, in the most widely used road safety appraisal tools such as SafetyAnalyst and International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP), indirect effects related to travel time and environment are not considered. Most economic appraisal studies conducted for road safety countermeasures consider only the safety benefits and ignore the indirect benefits due to lack of models to evaluate them. This study attempts to document the quantitative impact of indirect benefits during economic appraisal of road safety infrastructure investments particularly from the angle of reduced crashes. METHODS: To this effect, data from 9 European countries and the 20-year infrastructure improvement programme developed for the Netherlands are applied to demonstrate the impact of these indirect benefits through a quantitative study. RESULTS: The results show that indirect benefits increase the value of benefits by 7%, which improves the cost effectiveness of countermeasures. Consequently, the number of countermeasures selected for implementation are increased due to addition of these benefits. Travel time benefits constitute the largest share of indirect benefits with a contribution of 6% to the overall benefits due to countermeasure implementation. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, indirect benefits have a substantial impact on the computation of benefits and countermeasure selection process. In order to present improved business cases for road safety infrastructure investments, there is need to include these benefits during economic appraisal process. Travel time benefits have the highest portion of all indirect benefits compared to vehicle operating costs (VOCs) and emission benefits. The study recommends conducting more research related to travel time benefits due to countermeasure implementation.

[Cost-effectiveness of HCV testing strategies for hepatitis C elimination in general population in China].

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C screening in general population in China, and find the age group in which hepatitis C screening can achieve the best cost-effectiveness. Methods: A decision-Markov model was constructed by using software TreeAge pro 2019 to simulate the outcomes of hepatitis C disease pregression of 100 000 persons aged 20-59 years. The cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from societal perspectives by using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). One-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were used to evaluate the uncertainty of parameters and model. Results: Hepatitis C screening was cost-effective in people aged 20- 59 years and the cost effectiveness was best in age group 40-49 years. Compared with non-screening strategy of hepatitis C in people aged 20-59 years, the incremental cost was 161.24 yuan, the incremental utility was 0.003 6 quality adjusted life years (QALYs)/per person, ICER was 45 197.26 yuan/QALY, ICER was less than the willing payment threshold. The ICER and NMB in all age groups were 42 055.06-53 249.43 yuan/QALY and 96.52-169.86 yuan/per person. Hepatitis C screening in people aged 40-49 years had the best cost-effectiveness. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the discount rate, anti-HCV detection cost, anti-HCV infection rate and the cost of direct antiviral agents were the main factors influencing economic evaluation. The results of the probability sensitivity analysis indicated that the model analysis was stable. Conclusions: Implementing hepatitis C screening based on medical institutions is cost-effective in people aged 20- 59 years, especially in those aged 40-49 years. Implementing the HCV screening strategy of be willing to test as far as possible in general population can reduce hepatitis C disease burden in China.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus the EXTREME regimen in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.

REST: a preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement - feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement. DESIGN: Feasibility two-arm two-centre RCT using 1:1 randomisation with an embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Two National Health Service (NHS) secondary care hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Preoperative adult patients identified from total knee replacement waiting lists with disturbed sleep, defined as a score of 0-28 on the Sleep Condition Indicator questionnaire. INTERVENTION: The REST intervention is a preoperative tailored sleep assessment and behavioural intervention package delivered by an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP), with a follow-up phone call 4 weeks postintervention. All participants received usual care as provided by the participating NHS hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full trial. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1-week presurgery, and 3 months postsurgery. Data collected to determine feasibility included the number of eligible patients, recruitment rates and intervention adherence. Qualitative work explored the acceptability of the study processes and intervention delivery through interviews with ESPs and patients. RESULTS: Screening packs were posted to 378 patients and 57 patients were randomised. Of those randomised, 20 had surgery within the study timelines. An appointment was attended by 25/28 (89%) of participants randomised to the intervention. Follow-up outcomes measures were completed by 40/57 (70%) of participants presurgery and 15/57 (26%) postsurgery. Where outcome measures were completed, data completion rates were 80% or higher for outcomes at all time points, apart from the painDETECT: 86% complete at baseline, 72% at presurgery and 67% postsurgery. Interviews indicated that most participants found the study processes and intervention acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has demonstrated that with some amendments to processes and design, an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the REST intervention is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14233189.