Rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome by a single, pre-hospital troponin measurement: a randomized trial.

AIMS: Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are routinely transferred to the emergency department (ED). A clinical risk score with point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement might enable ambulance paramedics to identify low-risk patients in whom ED evaluation is unnecessary. The aim was to assess safety and healthcare costs of a pre-hospital rule-out strategy using a POC troponin measurement in low-risk suspected NSTE-ACS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This investigator-initiated, randomized clinical trial was conducted in five ambulance regions in the Netherlands. Suspected NSTE-ACS patients with HEAR (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors) score ≤3 were randomized to pre-hospital rule-out with POC troponin measurement or direct transfer to the ED. The sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome of 30-day healthcare costs. Secondary outcome was safety, defined as 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), consisting of ACS, unplanned revascularization or all-cause death. : A total of 863 participants were randomized. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the pre-hospital strategy (€1349 ± €2051 vs. €1960 ± €1808) with a mean difference of €611 [95% confidence interval (CI): 353-869; P < 0.001]. In the total population, MACE were comparable between groups [3.9% (17/434) in pre-hospital strategy vs. 3.7% (16/429) in ED strategy; P = 0.89]. In the ruled-out ACS population, MACE were very low [0.5% (2/419) vs. 1.0% (4/417)], with a risk difference of -0.5% (95% CI -1.6%-0.7%; P = 0.41) in favour of the pre-hospital strategy. CONCLUSION: Pre-hospital rule-out of ACS with a POC troponin measurement in low-risk patients significantly reduces healthcare costs while incidence of MACE was low in both strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT05466591 and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform id NTR 7346.

The most efficient and effective BRCA1/2 testing strategy in epithelial ovarian cancer: Tumor-First or Germline-First?

OBJECTIVE: Genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential to identify a hereditary cause like a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). An efficient strategy for genetic testing in OC is highly desired. We evaluated costs and effects of two strategies; (i) Tumor-First strategy, using a tumor DNA test as prescreen to germline testing, and (ii) Germline-First strategy, referring all patients to the clinical geneticist for germline testing. METHODS: Tumor-First and Germline-First were compared in two scenarios; using real-world uptake of testing and setting implementation to 100%. Decision analytic models were built to analyze genetic testing costs (including counseling) per OC patient and per family as well as BRCA1/2 detection probabilities. With a Markov model, the life years gained among female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV was investigated. RESULTS: Focusing on real-world uptake, with the Tumor-First strategy more OC patients and relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV are detected (70% versus 49%), at lower genetic testing costs (€1898 versus €2502 per patient, and €2511 versus €2930 per family). Thereby, female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV can live on average 0.54 life years longer with Tumor-First compared to Germline-First. Focusing on 100% uptake, the genetic testing costs per OC patient are substantially lower in the Tumor-First strategy (€2257 versus €4986). CONCLUSIONS: The Tumor-First strategy in OC patients is more effective in identifying germline BRCA1/2 PV at lower genetic testing costs per patient and per family. Optimal implementation of Tumor-First can further improve detection of heredity in OC patients.

Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure. Objective: To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications. Results: Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure. Trial Registration: TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.

Reducing the burden of brain tumor surgery.

BACKGROUND: Even though the need has been challenged, admitting patients to an intensive care or medium care unit (ICU/MCU) after adult supratentorial tumor craniotomy remains common practice. We have introduced a "no ICU, unless" policy for tumor craniotomy patients and evaluate costs, complications, and length of stay. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed comparing patients that underwent tumor craniotomy for supratentorial tumors during 2 years after introduction of the new policy with the year before. RESULTS: A reduction in ICU/MCU admittance from 88 to 23% of patients was found resulting in 13% cost reduction. Also, the new policy resulted in a 1.4-day shorter post-operative length of stay. Minor complications were reduced, while major complications remained the same. All major complications are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: We show that routine post-operative ICU/MCU admittance after tumor craniotomy does not reduce complications, but actually interferes with recovery of our patients. Changing the paradigm results in earlier discharge and cost reduction.

Decreased costs and retained QoL due to the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention in LTCFs: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The number of residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in need of palliative care is growing in the Western world. Therefore, it is foreseen that significantly higher percentages of budgets will be spent on palliative care. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of palliative care interventions in these settings are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention. PACE (Palliative Care for Older People) is a 1-year palliative care programme aiming at integrating general palliative care into day-to-day routines in LTCFs, throughout seven EU countries. METHODS: A cluster RCT was conducted. LTCFs were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care. LTCFs reported deaths of residents, about whom questionnaires were filled in retrospectively about resource use and quality of the last month of life. A health care perspective was adopted. Direct medical costs, QALYs based on the EQ-5D-5L and costs per quality increase measured with the QOD-LTC were outcome measures. RESULTS: Although outcomes on the EQ-5D-5L remained the same, a significant increase on the QOD-LTC (3.19 points, p value 0.00) and significant cost-savings were achieved in the intervention group (€983.28, p value 0.020). The cost reduction mainly resulted from decreased hospitalization-related costs (€919.51, p value 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Costs decreased and QoL was retained due to the PACE Steps to Success intervention. Significant cost savings and improvement in quality of end of life (care) as measured with the QOD-LTC were achieved. A clinically relevant difference of almost 3 nights shorter hospitalizations in favour of the intervention group was found. This indicates that timely palliative care in the LTCF setting can prevent lengthy hospitalizations while retaining QoL. In line with earlier findings, we conclude that integrating general palliative care into daily routine in LTCFs can be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14741671 .

Case-studies of displacement effects in Dutch hospital care.

BACKGROUND: Under a constrained health care budget, cost-increasing technologies may displace funds from existing health services. However, it is unknown what services are displaced and how such displacement takes place in practice. The aim of our study was to investigate how the Dutch hospital sector has dealt with the introduction of cost-increasing health technologies, and to present evidence of the relative importance of three main options to deal with cost-increases in health care: increased spending, increased efficiency, or displacement of other services. METHODS: We conducted six case-studies and interviewed 84 professionals with various roles and responsibilities (practitioners, heads of clinical department, board of directors, insurers, and others) to investigate how they experienced decision making in response to the cost pressure of cost-increasing health technologies. Transcripts were analyzed thematically in Atlas.ti on the basis of an item list. RESULTS: Direct displacement of high-value care due to the introduction of new technologies was not observed; respondents primarily pointed to increased spending and efficiency measures to accommodate the introduction of the cost-increasing technologies. Respondents found it difficult to identify the opportunity costs; partly due to limited transparency in the internal allocation of funds within a hospital. Furthermore, respondents experienced the entry of new technologies and cost-containment as two parallel processes that are generally not causally linked: cost containment was experienced as a permanent issue to level costs and revenues, independent from entry of new technologies. Furthermore, the way of financing was found important in displacement in the Netherlands, especially as there is a separate budget for expensive drugs. This budget pressure was found to be reallocated horizontally across departments, whereas the budget pressure of other services is primarily reallocated vertically within departments or divisions. Respondents noted that hospitals have reacted to budget pressures primarily through a narrowing in the portfolio of their services, and a range of (other) efficiency measures. The board of directors is central in these processes, insurers are involved only to a limited extent. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that new technologies were generally accommodated by greater efficiency and increased spending, and that hospitals sought savings or efficiency measures in response to cumulative cost pressures rather than in response to single cost-increasing technologies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Presently, there is only limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as an add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, PNFS as add-on therapy to SCS demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We report here the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as additional therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care perspective using the general principles of cost-utility analysis, using empirical data from our multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of hybrid SCS + PNFS on low back pain in FBSS patients, who were back pain non-responders to initial SCS-therapy, over a time-horizon of three months. Outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were integrated using the net monetary benefit (NMB). Differences in costs, effects, and NMB were analyzed using multilevel regression. Uncertainty surrounding the NMB was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients implanted with both SCS and PNFS, randomly assigned to a group with PNFS either activated or inactive, completed the controlled part of the study. With mean total costs for the SCS + active PNFS group of €1813.86 (SD €109.78) versus €1103.64 (SD €123.43) for the SCS + inactive PNFS group at three months, we found an incremental cost-utility ratio of €25.311 per QALY gained and a probability being cost-effective of more than 80% given a willingness to pay for a QALY of about €40.000. CONCLUSIONS: From a Dutch national health-care context, when the willingness to pay threshold is up to 60.000 Euros per QALY, PNFS as an add-on therapy to SCS for the treatment of low back pain in FBSS patients has a high probability of being cost-effective.

Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed. METHODS: The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.

Improving patient-centredness in partnership with female patients: a cluster RCT in fertility care.

QUESTION: What is the effect of a multifaceted intervention with participation of patients on improvement of patient-centredness in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores provided by women in fertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We should provide care that takes into account the preferences and needs of patients, i.e. patient-centred care. Especially infertile patients who suffer from a high emotional burden of treatment could benefit from a more patient-centred approach in healthcare. However, the improvement of patient-centred care is still needed, because effective strategies to come to improvement are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A cluster RCT was performed within 32 Dutch fertility clinics, covering about one-third of all Dutch hospitals. After randomization, 16 clinics in the intervention group were exposed to a multifaceted improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for 1 year. This strategy comprised audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. The remaining 16 clinics in the control group performed care as usual. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: The clinics' levels of patient-centredness were measured, using the validated Patient-centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility). At baseline measurement, a total of 1620 women in couples undergoing fertility care (this included both male, female, mixed infertility and infertility of unknown cause) in one of the participating clinics were randomly selected to participate in the study and complete the questionnaire. For the after measurement, we randomly selected a comparable sample of 1565 women in infertile couples. Both women who had already started their treatment before the start of the study (67%) and women who started their treatment after the start of this study (33%) were included. To avoid bias, we only included the responses of non-pregnant respondents. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: The final analysis involved 30 clinics. A total of 946 women (response 58.4%) completed their questionnaire at baseline measurement and also a total of 946 women (response 60.4%) at after measurement. After excluding the pregnant patients, respectively 696 and 730 questionnaires were eligible for analysis at baseline and after measurement. The total score of case-mix adjusted PCQ-Infertility at after measurement did not differ significantly between the intervention and control group (B = 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.04-0.15; P = 0.25). However, scores on the continuity of care subscale were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (B = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.00-0.40; P < 0.05). The addition of three interaction terms to the model had a significant impact: (i) being younger than 36 years, (ii) beginning treatment after the study had started and (iii) using complementary and alternative medicine. If women met all three conditions, the scores in the intervention group were on average 0.31 points higher compared with the control group (95% CI = 0.14-0.48; P = <0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our response rates are sufficient, but the responses of many women are still lacking which might have biased our results. Furthermore, the PCQ-Infertility scores at baseline measurement were already reasonably high, which could have limited the effect of the multifaceted improvement strategy. Because we only included women in infertile couples in our study, we cannot draw conclusions on the effect of an improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for partners. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores, although some effect could be observed in specific groups of women and in specific dimensions of patient-centredness. These results can guide future research, in which we should focus more on personalized strategies and outcome measures. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), The Netherlands. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT01481064.

Early salpingectomy (TUbectomy) with delayed oophorectomy to improve quality of life as alternative for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (TUBA study): a prospective non-randomised multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) around the age of 40 is currently recommended to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. This procedure decreases the elevated ovarian cancer risk by 80-96% but it initiates premature menopause as well. The latter is associated with short-term and long-term morbidity, potentially affecting quality of life (QoL). Based on recent insights into the Fallopian tube as possible site of origin of serous ovarian carcinomas, an alternative preventive strategy has been put forward: early risk-reducing salpingectomy (RRS) and delayed oophorectomy (RRO). However, efficacy and safety of this alternative strategy have to be investigated. METHODS: A multicentre non-randomised trial in 11 Dutch centres for hereditary cancer will be conducted. Eligible patients are premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers after completing childbearing without (a history of) ovarian carcinoma. Participants choose between standard RRSO at age 35-40 (BRCA1) or 40-45 (BRCA2) and the alternative strategy (RRS upon completion of childbearing and RRO at age 40-45 (BRCA1) or 45-50 (BRCA2)). Women who opt for RRS but do not want to postpone RRO beyond the currently recommended age are included as well. Primary outcome measure is menopause-related QoL. Secondary outcome measures are ovarian/breast cancer incidence, surgery-related morbidity, histopathology, cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, and cost-effectiveness. Mixed model data analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: The exact role of the Fallopian tube in ovarian carcinogenesis is still unclear. It is not expected that further fundamental research will elucidate this role in the near future. Therefore, this clinical trial is essential to investigate RRS with delayed RRO as alternative risk-reducing strategy in order to improve QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02321228 ).

Economic evaluation of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A large randomized clinical trial (the Occupational Therapy in Parkinson's Disease [OTiP] study) recently demonstrated that home-based occupational therapy improves perceived performance in daily activities of people with Parkinson's disease (PD). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation over a 6-month period for both arms of the OTiP study. Participants were 191 community-dwelling PD patients and 180 primary caregivers. The intervention group (n = 124 patients) received 10 weeks of home-based occupational therapy; the control group (n = 67 patients) received usual care (no occupational therapy). Costs were assessed from a societal perspective including healthcare use, absence from work, informal care, and intervention costs. Health utilities were evaluated using EuroQol-5d. We estimated cost differences and cost utility using linear mixed models and presented the net monetary benefit at different values for willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: In our primary analysis, we excluded informal care hours because of substantial missing data for this item. The estimated mean total costs for the intervention group compared with controls were €125 lower for patients, €29 lower for caregivers, and €122 higher for patient-caregiver pairs (differences not significant). At a value of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (reported threshold for PD), the net monetary benefit of the intervention per patient was €305 (P = 0.74), per caregiver €866 (P = 0.01) and per patient-caregiver pair €845 (P = 0.24). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, occupational therapy did not significantly impact on total costs compared with usual care. Positive cost-effectiveness of the intervention was only significant for caregivers.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management group program to improve social participation in patients with neuromuscular disease and chronic fatigue: protocol of the Energetic study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue is present in more than 60% of the patients with a neuromuscular disease and can be their most disabling symptom. In combination with other impairments, fatigue often results in low levels of physical activity and decreased social participation, leading to high societal costs. 'Energetic' is a self-management group program aimed at improving social participation, physical endurance and alleviating fatigue in these patients. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Energetic program. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentered, assessor-blinded, two-armed randomized controlled trial is conducted with evaluations at inclusion and four, seven and fifteen months later. The study includes patients with a neuromuscular disease and chronic fatigue and, when present, their caregivers. The participants are randomized (ratio 1:1) to either an intervention group, receiving the Energetic program, or a control group, receiving usual care (i.e., no specific intervention). The Energetic program covers four months and includes four modules: 1) individually tailored aerobic exercise training; 2) education about aerobic exercise; 3) self-management training in applying energy conservation strategies; and 4) implementation and relapse prevention in daily life. Two months after cessation of the program a booster session is provided. The primary outcome is the perceived performance score of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). Secondary outcomes include the COPM-satisfaction score, and measures of fatigue, physical endurance, activity engagement, mood, and self-efficacy. Caregiver burden is also evaluated as a secondary outcome. Health-related quality of life and medical and societal costs are assessed to estimate cost-effectiveness of the program. DISCUSSION: The Energetic study is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a combined physical and self-management group training program for improving social participation, physical endurance and alleviating fatigue in patients with neuromuscular diseases. It will generate new insights in (cost-)effective rehabilitation strategies for these incurable conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02208687 .

The monetary value of patient-centred care: results from a discrete choice experiment in Dutch fertility care.

STUDY QUESTION: What are patients and insurers willing to pay for different aspects of fertility care, with a particular focus on patient-centredness? SUMMARY ANSWER: In fertility care, both patients and health insurers place a high value on patient-centred factors, also when taking into account the effectiveness of fertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: The benefit patients derive from fertility treatment may arise from several aspects of their care, such as the effectiveness, safety or patient-centred factors. Patient-centredness is recognized as an important, multi-dimensional concept, including domains on the organizational level (e.g. information provision) and on the human level (e.g. patient involvement). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 32 Dutch fertility clinics and five large health insurance companies in the Netherlands. A total of 996 infertile patients who underwent at least one treatment cycle for their fertility problem and 84 healthcare insurers participated in the study which was executed in the summer of 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All participating patients and health insurers completed a DCE about their preferences in fertility care regarding the effectiveness, patient-centredness of care and additional costs. Logistic regression analysis was subsequently used to determine what both patients and health insurers were willing to pay for a one-step increase in patient-centred care and 1% higher pregnancy rates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Five hundred and fifty patients (55.2%) and 45 healthcare insurers (53.6%) completed the DCE questionnaire. Patients were willing to pay a median amount of €463 for a relevant one-step increase in patient-centred care and €107 for 1% increase in pregnancy rates. Healthcare insurers' valuations were lower: €191 for more patient-centred care and €60 for 1% increase in pregnancy rates. The willingness-to-pay values depended on patients' age, patients' ethnicity, income, and treatment type and on health insurers' age. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: An important limitation of a DCE study is that other attributes, that were not included in our study, are relevant as well. Therefore, our study participants might make other choices in real life compared with our hypothetical DCE scenarios. We tried to prevent this potential bias by selecting the most important attributes from the literature, using the input of an expert panel and performing a pilot study to test the validity of our questionnaire. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study emphasizes the importance of patient-centredness aspects of care for both infertile patients and their insurers. Therefore, efforts by policymakers and clinicians to improve these aspects of care would increase the overall value patients derive from their fertility treatment. Moreover, although insurers placed a lower monetary value on patient-centredness aspects than patients, it is arguable that insurers' purchasing decisions should be guided by patient rather than insurer preferences. Finally, given the relatively high monetary value patients place on patient-centred aspects of their fertility care, there may be a willingness to allow for some optional co-payments for this quality of care dimension. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Sharp and Dohme, the Netherlands. No competing interests declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials NCT01834313.

Persistent Lyme Empiric Antibiotic Study Europe (PLEASE)--design of a randomized controlled trial of prolonged antibiotic treatment in patients with persistent symptoms attributed to Lyme borreliosis.

BACKGROUND: Lyme borreliosis, a potentially severe tick-borne infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, can cause multi-system inflammatory disease. The incidence has been increasing, as has the number of patients with persistent symptoms attributed to Borrelia. These symptoms, also referred to as post-Lyme disease syndrome, may follow an erythema migrans or other Lyme manifestations, and include pain, fatigue, and cognitive disturbances. The optimal duration of treatment for these symptoms is a subject of controversy. The PLEASE study is designed to determine whether prolonged antibiotic treatment leads to better patient outcome than standard treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The PLEASE study is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Based on power analysis and compensating for possible loss to follow-up, a minimum of 255 patients with borreliosis-attributed persistent symptoms are included. These symptoms are either (a) temporally related to an erythema migrans or otherwise proven symptomatic borreliosis, or (b) accompanied by a positive B. burgdorferi IgG or IgM immunoblot. All patients receive open-label ceftriaxone for two weeks. Patients are then randomized (ratio 1:1:1) to blinded oral follow-up treatment for 12 weeks with (I) doxycycline, (II) clarithromycin combined with hydroxychloroquine, or (III) placebo. The primary outcome is the physical component summary score (PCS) of the RAND-36 Health Status Inventory (RAND SF-36) at week 14. Secondary outcomes include physical and mental aspects of health-related quality of life (assessed by the subscales of the RAND SF-36), fatigue, neuropsychological evaluation, physical activity, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This article describes the background and design issues of the PLEASE study protocol. The results of this study may provide evidence for prescribing or withholding prolonged antibiotic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01207739 , Netherlands Trial Register: NTR2469.

Pre-hospital rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome by a single troponin: final one-year outcomes of the ARTICA randomised trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The healthcare burden of acute chest pain is enormous. In the randomized ARTICA trial, we showed that pre-hospital identification of low-risk patients and rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement reduces 30-day healthcare costs with low major adverse cardiac events (MACE) incidence. Here we present the final 1-year results of the ARTICA trial. METHODS: Low-risk patients with suspected NSTE-ACS were randomized to pre-hospital rule-out with POC troponin measurement or emergency department (ED) transfer. Primary 1-year outcome was healthcare costs. Secondary outcomes were safety, quality of life (QoL), and cost-effectiveness. Safety was defined as a 1-year MACE consisting of ACS, unplanned revascularization, or all-cause death. QoL was measured with EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was defined as 1-year healthcare costs difference per QoL difference. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed for all 863 patients. Healthcare costs were significantly lower in the pre-hospital strategy (€1932 ± €2784 vs. €2649 ± €2750), mean difference €717 [95% confidence interval (CI) €347 to €1087; P < 0.001]. In the total population, the 1-year MACE rate was comparable between groups [5.1% (22/434) in the pre-hospital strategy vs. 4.2% (18/429) in the ED strategy; P = 0.54]. In the ruled-out ACS population, 1-year MACE remained low [1.7% (7/419) vs. 1.4% (6/417)], risk difference 0.2% (95% CI -1.4% to 1.9%; P = 0.79). QoL showed no significant difference between strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-hospital rule-out of NSTE-ACS with POC troponin testing in low-risk patients is cost-effective, as expressed by a sustainable healthcare cost reduction and no significant effect on QoL. One-year MACE remained low for both strategies.

Visual analogue scales: scale recalibration by patients with dementia and their proxies.

BACKGROUND: Visual analogue scales (VAS) are often used to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, when such scales contain ambiguous anchors like "best imaginable health state," they produce answers that are difficult to interpret, as such anchors are interpreted differently by respondents of different age. This phenomenon that people's interpretation of subjective response scales changes in response to changing circumstances is known as scale recalibration. The current study attempts to investigate whether scale recalibration in a patient sample with cognitive limitations and proxies differs from the general population. METHODS: The participants in the current study were 151 pairs of community-dwelling patients with dementia and their proxies. They were administered three VASs with different upper anchors; (A) "best imaginable health state," (B) "best imaginable health state for someone your age," and (C) "best imaginable health state for a 25-year-old." From literature, we inferred a conceptual model for the general population that predicts the ordinal relationship of the VASs to be B ≥ A ≥ C. This rank order is tested by repeated measure ANOVA's in the aforementioned populations. RESULTS: VAS scores of patients with dementia were in line with the conceptual model. Proxy VAS scores for assessing patient HRQoL were not in line with the model: A > B > C. In addition, proxy VAS scores for assessing their own health were not in line with the model: A > B > C. CONCLUSION: Patients with dementia use the VAS in a similar way to the general population. Proxies assessing either patients or themselves differ from the general population.

Differences in risk and costs between prehospital identified low-risk men and women with chest pain.

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) in low-risk patient with a point-of-care troponin measurement reduces healthcare costs with similar safety to standard transfer to the hospital. Risk stratification is performed identical for men and women, despite important differences in clinical presentation, risk factors and age between men and women with NSTE-ACS. Our aim was to compare safety and healthcare costs between men and women in prehospital identified low-risk patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. METHODS: In the Acute Rule-out of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the (pre)hospital setting by HEART (History, ECG, Age, Risk factors and Troponin) score assessment and a single poInt of CAre troponin randomised trial, the HEAR (History, ECG, Age and Risk factors) score was assessed by ambulance paramedics in suspected NSTE-ACS patients. Low-risk patients (HEAR score ≤3) were included. In this substudy, men and women were compared. Primary endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), secondary endpoints were 30-day healthcare costs and the scores for the HEAR score components. RESULTS: A total of 863 patients were included, of which 495 (57.4%) were women. Follow-up was completed in all patients. In the total population, MACE occurred in 6.8% of the men and 1.6% of the women (risk ratio (RR) 4.2 (95% CI 1.9 to 9.2, p<0.001)). In patients with ruled-out ACS (97% of the total population), MACE occurred in 1.4% of the men and in 0.2% of the women (RR 7.0 (95% CI 2.0 to 14.2, p<0.001). Mean healthcare costs were €504.55 (95% CI €242.22 to €766.87, p<0.001) higher in men, mainly related to MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In a prehospital population of low-risk suspected NSTE-ACS patients, 30-day incidence of MACE and MACE-related healthcare costs were significantly higher in men than in women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05466591.

Micrometastases or isolated tumor cells and the outcome of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The association of isolated tumor cells and micrometastases in regional lymph nodes with the clinical outcome of breast cancer is unclear. METHODS: We identified all patients in The Netherlands who underwent a sentinel-node biopsy for breast cancer before 2006 and had breast cancer with favorable primary-tumor characteristics and isolated tumor cells or micrometastases in the regional lymph nodes. Patients with node-negative disease were randomly selected from the years 2000 and 2001. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: We identified 856 patients with node-negative disease who had not received systemic adjuvant therapy (the node-negative, no-adjuvant-therapy cohort), 856 patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases who had not received systemic adjuvant therapy (the node-positive, no-adjuvant-therapy cohort), and 995 patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases who had received such treatment (the node-positive, adjuvant-therapy cohort). The median follow-up was 5.1 years. The adjusted hazard ratio for disease events among patients with isolated tumor cells who did not receive systemic therapy, as compared with women with node-negative disease, was 1.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.94); among patients with micrometastases, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.15 to 2.13). Among patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.73) in the node-positive, adjuvant-therapy cohort, as compared with the node-positive, no-adjuvant-therapy cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated tumor cells or micrometastases in regional lymph nodes were associated with a reduced 5-year rate of disease-free survival among women with favorable early-stage breast cancer who did not receive adjuvant therapy. In patients with isolated tumor cells or micrometastases who received adjuvant therapy, disease-free survival was improved.

A model to correct for short-run inefficiencies in economic evaluations in healthcare.

Important assumptions that underlie cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are that production technologies are convex and that production processes always perform at constant returns to scale. However, in the short run these assumptions are likely to be violated. Therefore, CEAs might overestimate cost-effectiveness in the short run. To come up with a more precise cost-effectiveness outcome, we present a model that is able to correct the long-run incremental net benefit (INB) for short-run inefficiencies. This provides decision makers with a more realistic view of the expected efficiency gains. This model starts by determining the initial efficiency losses inflicted by inflexible resources. Then the model is made dynamic in order to adjust the efficiency losses by allowing for refilling and writing off freed capacity. Finally, the model calculates the length of the short-run time frame in which such efficiency losses exist, and a correction term with which the usual long-run INB should be adjusted to account for short-run inefficiencies. The model is applied to two cases: dialysis and digitizing a radiography department. The dialysis case shows moderate short-run efficiency losses while in the radiography case short-run efficiency losses are sufficiently large to cause a switch in cost-effectiveness from favorable to inefficient in the short run.

Improving person-centred care in nursing homes through dementia-care mapping: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and efficiency of nursing-home dementia care are suboptimal: there are high rates of neuropsychiatric symptoms among the residents and work-related stress among the staff. Dementia-care mapping is a person-centred care method that may alleviate both the resident and the staff problems. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dementia-care mapping in nursing-home dementia care. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a cluster-randomised controlled trial, with nursing homes grouped in clusters. Studywise minimisation is the allocation method. Nursing homes in the intervention group will receive a dementia-care-mapping intervention, while the control group will receive usual care. The primary outcome measure is resident agitation, to be assessed with the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. The secondary outcomes are resident neuropsychiatric symptoms, assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory--Nursing Homes and quality of life, assessed with Qualidem and the EQ-5D. The staff outcomes are stress reactions, job satisfaction and job-stress-related absenteeism, and staff turnover rate, assessed with the Questionnaire about Experience and Assessment of Work, the General Health Questionnaire-12, and the Maastricht Job Satisfaction Scale for Health Care, respectively. We will collect the data from the questionnaires and electronic registration systems. We will employ linear mixed-effect models and cost-effectiveness analyses to evaluate the outcomes. We will use structural equation modelling in the secondary analysis to evaluate the plausibility of a theoretical model regarding the effectiveness of the dementia-care mapping intervention. We will set up process analyses, including focus groups with staff, to determine the relevant facilitators of and barriers to implementing dementia-care mapping broadly. DISCUSSION: A novelty of dementia-care mapping is that it offers an integral person-centred approach to dementia care in nursing homes. The major strengths of the study design are the large sample size, the cluster-randomisation, and the one-year follow-up. The generalisability of the implementation strategies may be questionable because the motivation for person-centred care in both the intervention and control nursing homes is above average. The results of this study may be useful in improving the quality of care and are relevant for policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR2314.