39-LB: Individualised Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: The ISDR Study—A Randomised Controlled Trial of Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-Effectiveness

Diabetes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 39-LB
Author(s):  
DEBORAH MARY BROADBENT ◽  
AMU WANG ◽  
CHRISTOPHER P. CHEYNE ◽  
JAMES G. LATHE ◽  
IRENE M. STRATTON ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e025788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah M Broadbent ◽  
Christopher J Sampson ◽  
Amu Wang ◽  
Lola Howard ◽  
Abigail E Williams ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Christopher Newton ◽  
Gurpreet Singh ◽  
David Nolan ◽  
Vicky Booth ◽  
Claire Diver ◽  
...  

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.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042365
Author(s):  
Jessica Leight ◽  
Negussie Deyessa ◽  
Vandana Sharma

ObjectivesExperience of intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with adverse health and psychosocial outcomes for women. However, rigorous economic evaluations of interventions targeting IPV prevention are rare. This paper analyses the cost-effectiveness of Unite for a Better Life (UBL), a gender-transformative intervention designed to prevent IPV and HIV risk behaviours among men, women and couples.DesignWe use an economic evaluation nested within a large-scale cluster randomised controlled trial, analysing financial and economic costs tracked contemporaneously.SettingUBL was implemented in rural southern Ethiopia between 2013 and 2015.ParticipantsThe randomised controlled trial included 6770 households in 64 villages.InterventionsUBL is an intervention delivered within the context of the Ethiopian coffee ceremony, a culturally established forum for community discussion, and designed to assist participants to build skills for healthy, non-violent, equitable relationships.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThis paper reports on the unit cost and cost-effectiveness of the interventions implemented. Cost-effectiveness is measured as the cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted.ResultsThe estimated annualised cost of developing and implementing UBL was 2015 US$296 772, or approximately 2015 US$74 per individual directly participating in the intervention and 2015 US$5 per person annually for each community-level beneficiary (woman of reproductive age in intervention communities). The estimated cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted was 2015 US$2726 for the sample of direct beneficiaries, and 2015 US$194 for the sample of all community-level beneficiaries.ConclusionsUBL is an effective and cost-effective intervention for the prevention of IPV in a low and middle-income country setting. Further research should explore strategies to quantify the positive effects of the intervention across other domains.Trial registration numberNCT02311699 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AEARCTR-0000211 (AEA Registry)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document