scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (32) ◽  
pp. 1-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mant ◽  
Alastair Gray ◽  
Siân Pugh ◽  
Helen Campbell ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Trial Participants ◽  
Testing Group

Background Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but lacks a firm evidence base. Objective To assess whether or not augmenting symptomatic follow-up in primary care with two intensive methods of follow-up [monitoring of blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and scheduled imaging] is effective and cost-effective in detecting the recurrence of colorectal cancer treatable surgically with curative intent. Design Randomised controlled open-label trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) minimum follow-up (n = 301), (2) CEA testing only (n = 300), (3) computerised tomography (CT) only (n = 299) or (4) CEA testing and CT (n = 302). Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for 3 years; CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis were performed every 6 months for 2 years and then annually for 3 years. Those in the minimum and CEA testing-only arms had a single CT scan at 12–18 months. The groups were minimised on adjuvant chemotherapy, gender and age group (three strata). Setting Thirty-nine NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence. Participants A total of 1202 participants who had undergone curative treatment for Dukes’ stage A to C colorectal cancer with no residual disease. Adjuvant treatment was completed if indicated. There was no evidence of metastatic disease on axial imaging and the post-operative blood CEA level was ≤ 10 µg/l. Main outcome measures Primary outcome Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent. Secondary outcomes Time to detection of recurrence, survival after treatment of recurrence, overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Results Detection of recurrence During 5 years of scheduled follow-up, cancer recurrence was detected in 203 (16.9%) participants. The proportion of participants with recurrence surgically treated with curative intent was 6.3% (76/1202), with little difference according to Dukes’ staging (stage A, 5.1%; stage B, 7.4%; stage C, 5.6%; p = 0.56). The proportion was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive arms (7.5% overall) than in the minimum follow-up arm (2.7%) (difference 4.8%; p = 0.003). Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was 2.7% (8/301) in the minimum follow-up group, 6.3% (19/300) in the CEA testing group, 9.4% (28/299) in the CT group and 7.0% (21/302) in the CEA testing and CT group. Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive follow-up groups than in the minimum follow-up group; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) compared with minimum follow-up were as follows: CEA testing group, OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 5.65; CT group, OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.38; and CEA testing and CT group, OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.49. Survival A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis confirmed no significant difference between arms (log-rank p = 0.45). The baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazards ratio comparing the minimum and intensive arms was 0.87 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.15). These CIs suggest a maximum survival benefit from intensive follow-up of 3.8%. Cost-effectiveness The incremental cost per patient treated surgically with curative intent compared with minimum follow-up was £40,131 with CEA testing, £43,392 with CT and £85,151 with CEA testing and CT. The lack of differential impact on survival resulted in little difference in QALYs saved between arms. The additional cost per QALY gained of moving from minimum follow-up to CEA testing was £25,951 and for CT was £246,107. When compared with minimum follow-up, combined CEA testing and CT was more costly and generated fewer QALYs, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (–£208,347) and a dominated policy. Limitations Although this is the largest trial undertaken at the time of writing, it has insufficient power to assess whether or not the improvement in detecting treatable recurrence achieved by intensive follow-up leads to a reduction in overall mortality. Conclusions Rigorous staging to detect residual disease is important before embarking on follow-up. The benefit of intensive follow-up in detecting surgically treatable recurrence is independent of stage. The survival benefit from intensive follow-up is unlikely to exceed 4% in absolute terms and harm cannot be absolutely excluded. A longer time horizon is required to ascertain whether or not intensive follow-up is an efficient use of scarce health-care resources. Translational analyses are under way, utilising tumour tissue collected from Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery trial participants, with the aim of identifying potentially prognostic biomarkers that may guide follow-up in the future. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leone Ridsdale ◽  
Alison McKinlay ◽  
Gabriella Wojewodka ◽  
Emily J Robinson ◽  
Iris Mosweu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Management Education ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundEpilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)].DesignA parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial.SettingParticipants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs.InterventionA 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken.RandomisationA 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two.BlindingParticipants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout.ResultsThe trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK),n = 205; TAU,n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK),n = 163; TAU,n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours.ConclusionsFor people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management.Future workMore research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389.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. 22, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of body psychotherapy in the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Priebe ◽  
Mark Savill ◽  
Til Wykes ◽  
Richard Bentall ◽  
Christoph Lauber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Body Psychotherapy ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThe negative symptoms of schizophrenia significantly impact on quality of life and social functioning, and current treatment options are limited. In this study the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group body psychotherapy as a treatment for negative symptoms were compared with an active control.DesignA parallel-arm, multisite randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was conducted independently of the research team, using a 1 : 1 computer-generated sequence. Assessors and statisticians were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was conducted following the intention-to-treat principle. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, a health and social care perspective was adopted.ParticipantsEligibility criteria: age 18–65 years; diagnosis of schizophrenia with symptoms present at > 6 months; score of ≥ 18 on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative symptoms subscale; no change in medication type in past 6 weeks; willingness to participate; ability to give informed consent; and community outpatient. Exclusion criteria: inability to participate in the groups and insufficient command of English.SettingsParticipants were recruited from NHS mental health community services in five different Trusts. All groups took place in local community spaces.InterventionsControl intervention: a 10-week, 90-minute, 20-session group beginners’ Pilates class, run by a qualified Pilates instructor. Treatment intervention: a 10-week, 90-minute, 20-session manualised group body psychotherapy group, run by a qualified dance movement psychotherapist.OutcomesThe primary outcome was the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included measures of psychopathology, functional, social, service use and treatment satisfaction outcomes, both at treatment end and at 6-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 275 participants were randomised (140 body psychotherapy group, 135 Pilates group). At the end of treatment, 264 participants were assessed (137 body psychotherapy group, 127 Pilates group). The adjusted difference in means of the PANSS negative subscale at the end of treatment was 0.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.11 to 1.17], showing no advantage of the intervention. In the secondary outcomes, the mean difference in the Clinical Assessment Interview for negative symptoms expression subscale at the end of treatment was 0.62 (95% CI –1.23 to 0.00), and in extrapyramidal movement disorder symptoms –0.65 (95% CI –1.13 to –0.16) at the end of treatment and –0.58 (95% CI –1.07 to –0.09) at 6 months’ follow-up, showing a small significant advantage of body psychotherapy. No serious adverse events related to the interventions were reported. The total costs of the intervention were comparable with the control, with no clear evidence of cost-effectiveness for either condition.LimitationsOwing to the absence of a treatment-as-usual arm, it is difficult to determine whether or not both arms are an improvement over routine care.ConclusionsIn comparison with an active control, group body psychotherapy does not have a clinically relevant beneficial effect in the treatment of patients with negative symptoms of schizophrenia. These findings conflict with the review that led to the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggesting that arts therapies may be an effective treatment for negative symptoms.Future workDetermining whether or not this lack of effectiveness extends to all types of art therapies would be informative.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN842165587.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. 20, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effect of 3-5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: FACS randomized controlled trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3500-3500 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mant ◽  
Rafael Perera ◽  
Alastair Gray ◽  
Peter Rose ◽  
Alice Fuller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
Randomised Controlled

3500 Background: Intensive long-term follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but neither the actual benefit nor the optimal methodology is known. Methods: Pragmatic factorial randomised controlled trial in 39 UK hospitals, comparing minimum follow-up (which included a single CT scan at 12-18 months) with 3-6 monthly blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing and 6-12 monthly computerised tomography (CT) imaging of the chest, abdomen and pelvis following 1202 participants for 3-5 (mean 3.7) years. Results: The proportion of participants with recurrence treated surgically with curative intent was lower than predicted (6.0% overall) but was about 3x higher in the more intensive than minimum follow-up arms (p=0.019). The adjusted odds were 2.7 for CEA only (p=0.035) and 3.4 for CT only (p=0.007); the absolute differences in detection rate in the more intensive arms compared to minimum follow-up were 4.3-5.7% (5.8-8.0% per protocol). Combining CEA and CT provided no additional benefit (adjusted odds for CT+CEA arm = 2.9). The absolute difference in the proportion of participants with recurrence treated surgically with curative intent in the factorial comparison was 1.4% for CEA (p=0.28) and 2.8% for CT (p=0.04). There was no statistical difference in colorectal cancer deaths nor overall deaths in the minimum compared to the intensive follow-up arms. Conclusions: Both regular CEA measurement and CT scanning result in significantly higher rates of diagnosis of operable recurrent colorectal cancer compared to minimal follow up. There is no benefit in monitoring with both CEA and CT. To date no difference in the overall mortality has been demonstrated. CEA monitoring combined with a single CT scan at 12-18 months seems likely to be cost effective. Clinical trial information: 41458548.

scholarly journals Colonic carcinoid tumors: a clinicopathologic study of 23 patients from a single institution

2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 288-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Reis Waisberg ◽  
Antonio Sergio Fava ◽  
Lourdes Conceição Martins ◽  
Leandro Luongo Matos ◽  
Maria Isete Fares Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Abdominal Mass ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Muscularis Propria ◽  
Venous Invasion ◽  
Carcinoid Tumors ◽  
Intestinal Bypass ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
The Mean

CONTEXT: Colonic carcinoids, excluding those arising in the appendix, have proved to be extremely rare. Due to their rarity, the characteristics and behavior of this unusual malignancy remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To review the clinicopathologic features of patients operated on carcinoid tumors of the colon. METHODS: Twenty-three patients (12 males and 11 females) were operated on colonic carcinoids. The mean age of the patients was 63.0 ± 12.9 years (42 to 85 years). The clinical and histopathological data of patients who were pathologically diagnosed as having carcinoid tumors and submitted to surgical treatment over a 30-year period (1977-2007) were gathered. Actuarial patient survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with carcinoid-specific death as the outcome. RESULTS: The mean time elapsed between onset of symptoms and surgical treatment was 8.3 months (1.5 to 20 months). The most frequent symptoms or signs encountered were abdominal pain followed by anorexia or weight loss, diarrhea, abdominal tenderness, palpable abdominal mass, and rectal bleeding. No carcinoid syndrome was noted. The lesion was located in the cecum in 16 (69.6%) patients, in the sigmoid in 3 patients (13.0%), in the ascending colon in 3 patients (13.0%), and in the transverse colon in one patient (4.3%). Twenty-one (91.3%) patients were operated on curative intent. Spreading of the disease to the liver and peritoneum was found in two (8.7%) patients who submitted to intestinal bypass. The mean size of the largest mass was 3.7 ± 1.2 cm (1.5 to 6.2 cm). There were multiple (two or more) lesions in three cases (13.0%). In the resected cases, the lymph nodes were compromised in 10 patients (47.6%) and disease-free in 11 (52.4%). Venous invasion and neural infiltration were both present in five (23.8%) patients. The tumors had penetrated the muscularis propria in all resected cases. Four (17.4%) patients had a second non-carcinoid primary tumor. Three (13.0%) patients died due to postoperative complications and five (21.7%) patients died from metachronous metastases or local recurrence. Fifteen patients (65.2%) remain alive without evidence of active disease. The mean follow-up period was 12 years (1.2 to 18 years), whereas the mean global survival was 50.7 ± 34.2 months and the crude survival rate at 5 years was 62.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Carcinoid tumors of the colon are frequently right-sided and may be clinically occult until an advanced stage is reached. Based on the relatively poor survival rates reported, it is recommended that, in addition to standard surgical resection, vigorous surveillance for metastatic disease must be performed, particularly during the first 2 years after surgery. In addition, these patients require evaluation of the entire gastrointestinal tract for evidence of coexisting malignancy, along with an extended period of follow-up, because tumor recurrences after 5 years are not uncommon.

scholarly journals Prophylactic levofloxacin to prevent infections in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma: the TEAMM RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (62) ◽  
pp. 1-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark T Drayson ◽  
Stella Bowcock ◽  
Tim Planche ◽  
Gulnaz Iqbal ◽  
Guy Pratt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Febrile Episodes

Background Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as Clostridium difficile. There is a need to assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibacterial prophylaxis against any risks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial. Objectives To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. Design Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio. Setting A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Participants A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma. Intervention Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond. Results In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, n = 489; placebo, n = 488). A total of 134 (27%) events (febrile episodes, n = 119; deaths, n = 15) occurred in the placebo arm and 95 (19%) events (febrile episodes, n = 91; deaths, n = 4) occurred in the levofloxacin arm; the hazard ratio for time to first event (febrile episode or death) within the first 12 weeks was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.002). Levofloxacin also reduced other infections (144 infections from 116 patients) compared with placebo (179 infections from 133 patients; p-trend of 0.06). There was no difference in new acquisitions of C. difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Gram-negative organisms when assessed up to 16 weeks. Levofloxacin produced slightly higher quality-adjusted life-year gains over 16 weeks, but had associated higher costs for health resource use. With a median follow-up of 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.94). Limitations Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04). Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976. Funding details This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a dedicated Health and Social Care Professionals team in the Emergency Department on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older adults: Study Protocol

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Íde O’Shaughnessy ◽  
Eimear Smalle ◽  
Stephen White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Effectiveness Of Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background : Older people are frequent Emergency Department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes post-index visit, often have increased ED length of stay and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCPs teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared to usual care. Methods : The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ≥65 years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30-days, four and six-month follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; costs-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared to usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. Discussion : This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of the study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12 th November 2018. Protocol version 1. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739515

scholarly journals Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Wiggins ◽  
Mary Sawtell ◽  
Octavia Wiseman ◽  
Christine McCourt ◽  
Sandra Eldridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
The World ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. Methods The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a ‘healthy baby’ composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born “healthy” in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional ‘healthy and positive birth’ of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. Discussion This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. Trial registration Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441. Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.

scholarly journals ‘Not clinically effective but cost-effective’ - paradoxical conclusions in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e029596 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Raftery ◽  
HC Williams ◽  
Aileen Clarke ◽  
Jim Thornton ◽  
John Norrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Null Results ◽  
Health Technology Assessment Programme ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesRandomised controlled trials in healthcare increasingly include economic evaluations. Some show small differences which are not statistically significant. Yet these sometimes come to paradoxical conclusions such as: ‘the intervention is not clinically effective’ but ‘is probably cost-effective’. This study aims to quantify the extent of non-significant results and the types of conclusions drawn from them.DesignCross-sectional retrospective analysis of randomised trials published by the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme. We defined as ‘doubly null’ those trials that found non-statistically significant differences in both primary outcome and cost per patient. Paradoxical was defined as concluding in favour of an intervention, usually compared with placebo or usual care. No human participants were involved. Our sample was 226 randomised trial projects published by the Health Technology Assessment programme 2004 to 2017. All are available free online.ResultsThe 226 projects contained 193 trials with a full economic evaluation. Of these 76 (39%) had at least one ‘doubly null’ comparison. These 76 trials contained 94 comparisons. In these 30 (32%) drew economic conclusions in favour of an intervention. Overall report conclusions split roughly equally between those favouring the intervention (14), and those favouring either the control (7) or uncertainty (9).DiscussionTrials with ‘doubly null’ results and paradoxical conclusions are not uncommon. The differences observed in cost and quality-adjustedlife year were small and non-statistically significant. Almost all these trials were also published in leading peer-reviewed journals. Although some guidelines for reporting economic results require cost-effectiveness estimates regardless of statistical significance, the interpretability of paradoxical results has nowhere been addressed.ConclusionsReconsideration is required of the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results, particularly when economics favours a novel intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document