scholarly journals O04 Clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection for hip OA: a randomised controlled trial (HIT)

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Kieran Bromley ◽  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Gemma Hughes ◽  
Emily Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Evidence of the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis (OA) is limited. The HIT trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride combined with best current treatment (BCT) with (i) BCT alone (primary objective) and (ii) an USGI of 5ml 1% lidocaine only combined with BCT (EudraCT:2014-003412-37). Methods This was a pragmatic, three-parallel arm, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in adults with moderate-severe painful hip OA recruited from community musculoskeletal services and primary care. Participants were randomised equally to: (1) BCT alone, (2) BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine, or (3) BCT plus USGI lidocaine only. Outcomes were collected postally at 2 weeks, 2, 4 and 6 months. The primary outcome was self-reported current hip pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS)) over 6 months (repeated measures analysis). Secondary outcomes included function (WOMAC), and, for cost-utility analysis, general health (EQ-5D-5L) and healthcare utilisation. 204 participants were required to detect a minimum difference of 1 point in mean pain NRS score between arms (1) and (2) with 80% power (5% two-tailed significance level, 15% loss to follow-up). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results 199 participants were recruited (43% male, mean age 63 years), 67 to arm (1) and 66 each to arms (2) and (3). Primary outcome completion rates were 95% at 2 weeks, 94% at 2 months, 90% at 4 months, and 89% at 6 months. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity (0-10 NRS) over 6 months was seen with BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine compared with BCT alone: -1.43 (95%CI -2.15,-0.72). Greater mean improvement in pain intensity was seen at 2 weeks (-3.17; -4.06,-2.28) and 2 months (-1.81;-2.71,-0.92), but not at 4 (-0.86;-1.78,0.05) or 6 months (0.12; -0.80,1.04). Participants treated with BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine compared with BCT alone had greater mean improvement in function (WOMAC-F -5.47;(-9.41,-1.53)) over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in hip pain intensity over 6 months between BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine compared with BCT plus USGI lidocaine (-0.52;-1.21,0.18). There was one possible treatment-related serious adverse event: a participant with no signs of infection at randomisation died from endocarditis four months after USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine. BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine was less costly (mean cost difference per participant £-161.59) and associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than BCT only over 6 months (mean difference 0.0477 (0.0257,0.0699). Conclusion USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine plus BCT leads to greater improvements in pain and function over 6 months in adults with hip OA than BCT alone, and was highly cost-effective. There was no significant difference in hip pain intensity between the groups receiving USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine and USGI lidocaine only, raising the possibility of a degree of placebo effect. Disclosures Z. Paskins None. K. Bromley None. M. Lewis None. G. Hughes None. E. Hughes None. A. Cherrington None. A. Hall None. M. Holden None. R. Oppong None. J. Kigozi None. K. Stevenson None. A. Menon None. P. Roberts None. G. Peat None. C. Jinks None. N.E. Foster None. C.D. Mallen None. E. Roddy None.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLAN-A intervention, a peer led physical activity program for adolescent girls: results of a cluster randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Jago ◽  
Byron Tibbitts ◽  
Kathryn Willis ◽  
Emily Sanderson ◽  
Rebecca Kandiyali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Physical activity is associated with improved health. Girls are less active than boys. Pilot work showed that a peer-led physical activity intervention called PLAN-A was a promising method of increasing physical activity in secondary school age girls. This study examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLAN-A intervention. Methods We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial with Year 9 (13–14 year old) girls recruited from 20 secondary schools. Schools were randomly assigned to the PLAN-A intervention or a non-intervention control group after baseline data collection. Girls nominated students to be peer leaders. The top 18 % of girls nominated by their peers in intervention schools received three days of training designed to prepare them to support physical activity. Data were collected at two time points, baseline (T0) and 5–6 months post-intervention (T1). Participants wore an accelerometer for seven days to assess the primary outcome of mean weekday minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Multivariable mixed effects linear regression was used to estimate differences in the primary outcome between the two arms on an Intention-to-Treat (ITT) basis. Resource use and quality of life were measured and a within trial economic evaluation from a public sector perspective was conducted. Results A total of 1558 girls were recruited to the study. At T0, girls in both arms engaged in an average of 51 min of MVPA per weekday. The adjusted mean difference in weekday MVPA at T1 was − 2.84 min per day (95 % CI = -5.94 to 0.25) indicating a slightly larger decline in weekday MVPA in the intervention group. Results were broadly consistent when repeated using a multiple imputation approach and for pre-specified secondary outcomes and sub-groups. The mean cost of the PLAN-A intervention was £2817 per school, equivalent to £31 per girl. Economic analyses indicated that PLAN-A did not lead to demonstrable cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per unit change in QALY. Conclusions This study has shown that the PLAN-A intervention did not result in higher levels of weekday MVPA or associated secondary outcomes among Year 9 girls. The PLAN-A intervention should not be disseminated as a public health strategy. Trial registration ISRCTN14539759–31 May, 2018.

scholarly journals Protocol for an economic evaluation of the randomised controlled trial of culprit lesion only PCI versus immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e014849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahidul Quayyum ◽  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
Jose Robles-Zurita ◽  
Keith Oldroyd ◽  
Uwe Zeymer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Culprit Lesion ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Trial Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients’ characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country’s national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors atwww.twitter.comandwww.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e025031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry D Wright ◽  
Cindy Cooper ◽  
Alexander J Scott ◽  
Lucy Tindall ◽  
Shehzad Ali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Specific Phobias ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionSpecific phobias (intense, enduring fears of an object or situation that lead to avoidance and severe distress) are highly prevalent among children and young people. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is a well-established, effective intervention, but it can be time consuming and costly because it is routinely delivered over multiple sessions during several months. Alternative methods of treating severe and debilitating phobias in children are needed, like one-session treatment (OST), to reduce time and cost, and to prevent therapeutic drift and help children recover quickly. Our study explores whether (1) outcomes with OST are ‘no worse’ than outcomes with multisession CBT, (2) OST is acceptable to children, their parents and the practitioners who use it and (3) OST offers good value for money to the National Health Service (NHS) and to society.MethodA pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial will compare OST with multisession CBT-based therapy on their clinical and cost-effectiveness. The primary clinical outcome is a standardised behavioural task of approaching the feared stimulus at 6 months postrandomisation. The outcomes for the within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis are quality-adjusted life years based on EQ-5D-Y, and individual-level costs based of the intervention and use of health and social service care. A nested qualitative evaluation will explore children’s, parents’ and practitioners’ perceptions and experiences of OST. A total of 286 children, 7–16 years old, with DSM-IV diagnoses of specific phobia will be recruited via gatekeepers in the NHS, schools and voluntary youth services, and via public adverts.Ethics and disseminationThe trial received ethical approval from North East and York Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 17/NE/0012). Dissemination plans include publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations in relevant research conferences, local research symposia and seminars for children and their families, and for professionals and service managers.Trial registration numberISRCTN19883421;Pre-results.

scholarly journals Efficacy of nature-based therapy for individuals with stress-related illnesses: randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 213 (1) ◽  
pp. 404-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrika Karlsson Stigsdotter ◽  
Sus Sola Corazon ◽  
Ulrik Sidenius ◽  
Patrik Karlsson Nyed ◽  
Helmer Bøving Larsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Increasing Demand ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundStress-related illnesses are a major threat to public health, and there is increasing demand for validated treatments.AimsTo test the efficacy of nature-based therapy (NBT) for patients with stress-related illnesses.MethodRandomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01849718) comparing Nacadia® NBT (NNBT) with the cognitive–behavioural therapy known as Specialised Treatment for Severe Bodily Distress Syndromes (STreSS). In total, 84 participants were randomly allocated to one of the two treatments. The primary outcome measure was the mean aggregate score on the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI).ResultsBoth treatments resulted in a significant increase in the PGWBI (primary outcome) and a decrease in burnout (the Shirom–Melamed Burnout Questionnaire, secondary outcome), which were both sustained 12 months later. No significant difference in efficacy was found between NNBT and STreSS for primary outcome and secondary outcomes.ConclusionsThe study showed no statistical evidence of a difference between NNBT and STreSS for treating patients with stress-related illnesses.Declaration of interestNone.

scholarly journals Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention compared to usual care

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Wright ◽  
Alexis Foster ◽  
Cindy Cooper ◽  
Kirsty Sprange ◽  
Stephen Walters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Fidelity Assessment ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionServices are being encouraged to provide postdiagnostic treatment to those with dementia but the availability of evidence-based interventions following diagnosis has not kept pace with increase in demand. To address this need, the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention was created. A randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress.Methods and analysisThe RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group trial designed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of JtD compared with usual care. Recruitment will be through NHS services, third sector organisations and Join Dementia Research. The sample size is 486 randomised (243 to usual care and 243 to the intervention usual care). Participants can choose to ask a friend or relative (supporter) to become involved in the study. The primary outcome measure for participants is Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), collected at baseline and at 8 months’ postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be collected from participants and supporters at those visits. Participants will also be followed up at 12 months’ postrandomisation with a reduced set of measures. A process evaluation will be conducted through qualitative and fidelity substudies. Analyses will compare the two arms of the trial on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analyses will compare the mean DEMQOL scores of the participants at 8 months between the two study arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis will consider the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years of the intervention compared with usual care. Qualitative and fidelity substudies will be analysed through framework analysis and fidelity assessment tools respectively.Ethics and disseminationREC and HRA approval were obtained. A Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee has been constituted. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. Intervention materials will be made open access.Trial registration numberISRCTN17993825.

scholarly journals Droperidolv. haloperidol for sedation of aggressive behaviour in acute mental health: Randomised controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 206 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie Calver ◽  
Vincent Drinkwater ◽  
Rahul Gupta ◽  
Colin B. Page ◽  
Geoffrey K. Isbister
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Behavioural Disturbance ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Psychiatric Units ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Effective Sedation

BackgroundAgitation and aggression are significant problems in acute psychiatric units. There is little consensus on which drug is most effective and safest for sedation of these patients.AimsTo compare the effectiveness and safety of haloperidolv. droperidol for patients with agitation and aggression.MethodIn a masked, randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12611000565943) intramuscular droperidol (10 mg) was compared with intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) for adult patients with acute behavioural disturbance in a psychiatric intensive care unit. The primary outcome was time to sedation within 120 min. Secondary outcomes were use of additional sedation, adverse events and staff injuries.ResultsFrom 584 patients, 110 were randomised to haloperidol and 118 to droperidol. Effective sedation occurred in 210 (92%) patients within 120 min. There was no significant difference in median time to sedation: 20 min (interquartile range 15–30, range 10–75) for haloperidolv. 25 min (IQR 15–30, range 10–115) for droperidol (P= 0.89). Additional sedation was used more often with haloperidol (13%v. 5%,P= 0.06), but adverse effects were less common with haloperidol (1%v. 5%,P= 0.12). There were 8 staff injuries.ConclusionsBoth haloperidol and droperidol were effective for sedation of patients with acute behavioural disturbance.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of therapist-delivered online cognitive–behavioural therapy for depression: randomised controlled trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 197 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Hollinghurst ◽  
Tim J. Peters ◽  
Surinder Kaur ◽  
Nicola Wiles ◽  
Glyn Lewisand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Qaly Gain ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundTherapist-delivered online cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) has been found to be effective for depression in primary care.AimsTo determine the cost-effectiveness of online CBT compared with usual care.MethodEconomic evaluation at 8 months alongside a randomised controlled trial. Cost to the National Health Service (NHS), personal costs, and the value of lost productivity, each compared with outcomes based on the Beck Depression Inventory and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental analysis indicated the NHS cost per QALY gain.ResultsOnline CBT was more expensive than usual care, although the outcomes for the CBT group were better. Cost per QALY gain based on complete case data was £17 173, and £10 083 when missing data were imputed.ConclusionsOnline CBT delivered by a therapist in real time is likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care if society is willing to pay at least £20 000 per QALY; it could be a useful alternative to face-to-face CBT.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of first- v. second-generation antipsychotic drugs: results from a randomised controlled trial in schizophrenia responding poorly to previous therapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 191 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda M. Davies ◽  
Shôn Lewis ◽  
Peter B. Jones ◽  
Thomas R. E. Barnes ◽  
Fiona Gaughran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Atypical Antipsychotics ◽  
Antipsychotic Drugs ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Conventional Antipsychotics ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Second Generation Antipsychotic ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThere are claims that the extra costs of atypical (second-generation) antipsychotic drugs over conventional (first-generation) drugs are offset by improved health-related quality of life.AimsTo determine the relative costs and value of treatment with conventional or atypical antipsychotics in people with schizophrenia.MethodCost-effectiveness acceptability analysis integrated clinical and economic randomised controlled trial data of conventional and atypical antipsychotics in routine practice.ResultsConventional antipsychotics had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than atypical antipsychotics and were more than 50% likely to be cost-effective.ConclusionsThe primary and sensitivity analyses indicated that conventional antipsychotics may be cost-saving and associated with a gain in QALYs compared with atypical antipsychotics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document