scholarly journals Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of admissions to women's crisis houses compared with traditional psychiatric wards: pilot patient-preference randomised controlled trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 197 (S53) ◽  
pp. s32-s40 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Howard ◽  
C. Flach ◽  
M. Leese ◽  
S. Byford ◽  
H. Killaspy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Patient Preference ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundWomen's crisis houses have been developed in the UK as a less stigmatising and less institutional alternative to traditional psychiatric wards.AimsTo examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of women's crisis houses by first examining the feasibility of a pilot patient-preference randomised controlled trial (PP–RCT) design (ISRCTN20804014).MethodWe used a PP–RCT study design to investigate women presenting in crisis needing informal admission. The four study arms were the patient preference arms of women's crisis house or hospital admission, and randomised arms of women's crisis house or hospital admission.ResultsForty-one women entered the randomised arms of the trial (crisis house n = 19, wards n = 22) and 61 entered the patient-preference arms (crisis house n = 37, ward n = 24). There was no significant difference in outcomes (symptoms, functioning, perceived coercion, stigma, unmet needs or quality of life) or costs for any of the groups (randomised or preference arms), but women who obtained their preferred intervention were more satisfied with treatment.ConclusionsAlthough the sample sizes were too small to allow definite conclusions, the results suggest that when services are able to provide interventions preferred by patients, those patients are more likely to be satisfied with treatment. This pilot study provides some evidence that women's crisis houses are as effective as traditional psychiatric wards, and may be more cost-effective.

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing cognitive functional therapy with usual physiotherapy care in people with persistent low back pain

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Christopher Newton ◽  
Gurpreet Singh ◽  
David Nolan ◽  
Vicky Booth ◽  
Claire Diver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Functional Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Feasibility Rct

BACKGROUND: Combined physical and psychological programmes (CPPP) are recommended for people with disabling low back pain (LBP). Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) is a physiotherapist-led low intensity CPPP with positive effects in previous studies. The clinical and cost effectiveness of CFT has not previously been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Before a definitive RCT can be completed it is necessary to determine if completing such a study is possible. PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of completing a definitive RCT, that will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of CFT in comparison to usual physiotherapy care for people with persistent LBP in the UK NHS. METHODS: A pragmatic two-arm parallel feasibility RCT comparing CFT with usual physiotherapy care for people with persistent LBP will be completed. Sixty participants will be randomly allocated to receive CFT or usual physiotherapy care. The primary outcome will be feasibility of completing a definitive RCT. Participant reported outcome measures will be recorded at baseline, three, six and twelve-month follow-up, including disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial function. Data will be analysed descriptively. A qualitative process evaluation will explore the acceptability of the research processes and interventions. DISCUSSION: The rationale and methodological design of a mixed methods feasibility RCT is presented. This study aims to inform the planning, design and completion of a future definitive RCT in the UK NHS. The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed open access journal publication.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e017511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishma Patel ◽  
Rebecca J Beeken ◽  
Baptiste Leurent ◽  
Rumana Z Omar ◽  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.Setting14 general practitioner practices in England.ParticipantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention.Outcomes measuresHealth service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.ResultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations.Trial registration numberISRCTN16347068; Post-results.

scholarly journals SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E van Barneveld ◽  
V B Veth ◽  
J M Sampat ◽  
A M F Schreurs ◽  
M van Wely ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Deep Endometriosis ◽  
Ovarian Endometrioma ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

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 Cost-effectiveness of PoNDER health visitor training for mothers at lower risk of depression: findings on prevention of postnatal depression from a cluster-randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (08) ◽  
pp. 1324-1334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Henderson ◽  
Simon Dixon ◽  
Annette Bauer ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
C. Jane Morrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

AbstractBackgroundThere is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of health visitor (HV) training to assess postnatal depression (PND) and deliver psychological approaches to women at risk of depression. Whether this approach is cost-effective for lower-risk women is unknown. There is a need to know the cost of HV-delivered universal provision, and how much it might cost to improve health-related quality of life for postnatal women. A sub-study of a cluster-randomised controlled trial in the former Trent region (England) previously investigated the effectiveness of PoNDER HV training in mothers at lower risk of PND. We conducted a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis at 6-months postnatal for all mothers with lower-risk status attributed to an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score <12 at 6-weeks postnatal.MethodsIntervention HVs were trained in assessment and cognitive behavioural or person-centred psychological support techniques to prevent depression. Outcomes examined: quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains over the period between 6 weeks and 6 months derived from SF-6D (from SF-36); risk-of-depression at 6 months (dichotomising 6-month EPDS scores into lower risk (<12) and at-risk (⩾12).ResultsIn lower-risk women, 1474 intervention (63 clusters) and 767 control participants (37 clusters) had valid 6-week and 6-month EPDS scores. Costs and outcomes data were available for 1459 participants. 6-month adjusted costs were £82 lower in intervention than control groups, with 0.002 additional QALY gained. The probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000 was very high (99%).ConclusionsPoNDER HV training was highly cost-effective in preventing symptoms of PND in a population of lower-risk women and cost-reducing over 6 months.

scholarly journals Individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR study—rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial comparing annual and individualised risk-based variable-interval screening

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e025788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah M Broadbent ◽  
Christopher J Sampson ◽  
Amu Wang ◽  
Lola Howard ◽  
Abigail E Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Variable Interval ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

IntroductionCurrently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK.Methods and analysisPWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West – Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere.Trial registration numberISRCTN87561257; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Use of cast immobilisation versus removable brace in adults with an ankle fracture: multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1506
Author(s):  
Rebecca Kearney ◽  
Rebecca McKeown ◽  
Helen Parsons ◽  
Aminul Haque ◽  
Nick Parsons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Ankle Fracture ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Plaster Cast ◽  
Range Of Movement ◽  
Cast Immobilisation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objectives To assess function, quality of life, resource use, and complications in adults treated with plaster cast immobilisation versus a removable brace for ankle fracture. Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting 20 trauma units in the UK National Health Service. Participants 669 adults aged 18 years and older with an acute ankle fracture suitable for cast immobilisation: 334 were randomised to a plaster cast and 335 to a removable brace. Interventions A below the knee cast was applied and ankle range of movement exercises started on cast removal. The removable brace was fitted, and ankle range of movement exercises were started immediately. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the Olerud Molander ankle score at 16 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire, disability rating index, quality of life, and complications at 6, 10, and 16 weeks. Results The mean age of participants was 46 years (SD 17 years) and 381 (57%) were women. 502 (75%) participants completed the study. No statistically significant difference was found in the Olerud Molander ankle score between the cast and removable brace groups at 16 weeks (favours brace: 1.8, 95% confidence interval −2.0 to 5.6). No clinically significant differences were found in the Olerud Molander ankle scores at other time points, in the secondary unadjusted, imputed, or per protocol analyses. Conclusions Traditional plaster casting was not found to be superior to functional bracing in adults with an ankle fracture. No statistically difference was found in the Olerud Molander ankle score between the trial arms at 16 weeks. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN15537280 .

scholarly journals The HubBLe Trial: haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) versus rubber band ligation (RBL) for symptomatic second- and third-degree haemorrhoids: a multicentre randomised controlled trial and health-economic evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (88) ◽  
pp. 1-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Brown ◽  
Jim Tiernan ◽  
Katie Biggs ◽  
Daniel Hind ◽  
Neil Shephard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Rubber Band Ligation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Rubber Band ◽  
Artery Ligation ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundOptimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious.ObjectiveThe comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids.DesignA multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.PerspectiveUK NHS and Personal Social Services.Setting17 NHS Trusts.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL.InterventionsHAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL.OutcomesPrimary outcome – recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes – recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51;p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15;p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY.ConclusionsAt 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY.LimitationsBlinding of participants and site staff was not possible.Future workThe incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A,et al.Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Lancet2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease: the eTHoS study

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (70) ◽  
pp. 1-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus JM Watson ◽  
Jonathan Cook ◽  
Jemma Hudson ◽  
Mary Kilonzo ◽  
Jessica Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Haemorrhoidal Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk ◽  
To Receive

BackgroundHaemorrhoids are a benign anorectal condition and are highly prevalent in the UK population. Treatments involve clinic-based procedures and surgery. The surgical procedures available include stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) and traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH), and over 25,000 operations are performed for haemorrhoids annually in the UK. The disease is therefore important both to patients and to health service commissioners. Debate remains as to which of these surgical procedures is the most clinically effective and cost-effective.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SH with that of TH.DesignA large, open two-arm parallel-group pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 32 UK hospitals and a within-trial cost–benefit analysis. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to estimate benefits (willingness to pay).ParticipantsPatients with grades II–IV haemorrhoids who had not previously undergone SH or TH were included in the study.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive either SH or TH. Randomisation was minimised at 1 : 1, in accordance with baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) score, haemorrhoid grade, sex and centre, via an automated system.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was area under the quality-of-life curve measured using the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, and the primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific quality of life, recurrence, complications, further interventions and costs.ResultsBetween January 2011 and August 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive SH and 388 to receive TH). There were 774 participants included in the analysis as a result of one post-randomisation exclusion in the SH arm and two in the TH arm. SH was less painful than TH in the short term. Surgical complications were similar in both arms. EQ-5D-3L score was higher for the SH arm in the first 6 weeks after surgery, but over 24 months the TH group had significantly better EQ-5D-3L scores (–0.073, 95% confidence interval –0.140 to –0.006;p = 0.0342). Symptoms and further interventions were significantly fewer in the TH arm at 24 months. Continence was better in the TH arm and tenesmus occurred less frequently. The number of serious adverse events reported was 24 out of 337 (7.1%) for participants who received SH and 33 out of 352 (9.4%) for those who received TH. There were two deaths in the SH arm, both unrelated to the eTHoS (either Traditional Haemorrhoidectomy or Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for haemorrhoidal disease) study. Patient preference did not seem to influence the treatment difference. SH was dominated by TH as it cost more and was less effective. The net benefit for the TH arm was higher than that for the SH arm.LimitationsNeither the participants nor the assessors were masked to treatment assignment and final recruitment was slightly short of the total target of 800. There were also substantial missing follow-up data.ConclusionsWhile patients who received SH had less short-term pain, after 6 weeks, recurrence rates, symptoms, re-interventions and quality-of-life measures all favoured TH. In addition, TH is cheaper. As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, TH should be considered over SH as the surgical treatment of choice for haemorrhoids refractory to clinic-based interventions.Future workPerform an updated meta-analysis incorporating recently conducted European trials [eTHoS, HubBLe (haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids) and LingaLongo (Cost-effectiveness of New Surgical Treatments for Haemorrhoidal Disease)].Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN80061723.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document