scholarly journals Protocolised non-invasive compared with invasive weaning from mechanical ventilation for adults in intensive care: the Breathe RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (48) ◽  
pp. 1-114
Author(s):  
Gavin D Perkins ◽  
Dipesh Mistry ◽  
Ranjit Lall ◽  
Fang Gao-Smith ◽  
Catherine Snelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Respiratory Infection ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Non Invasive

Background Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a life-saving intervention. Following resolution of the condition that necessitated IMV, a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is used to determine patient readiness for IMV discontinuation. In patients who fail one or more SBTs, there is uncertainty as to the optimum management strategy. Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as an intermediate step in the protocolised weaning of patients from IMV. Design Pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting A total of 51 critical care units across the UK. Participants Adult intensive care patients who had received IMV for at least 48 hours, who were categorised as ready to wean from ventilation, and who failed a SBT. Interventions Control group (invasive weaning): patients continued to receive IMV with daily SBTs. A weaning protocol was used to wean pressure support based on the patient’s condition. Intervention group (non-invasive weaning): patients were extubated to NIV. A weaning protocol was used to wean inspiratory positive airway pressure, based on the patient’s condition. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, duration of IMV, proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for a presumed respiratory infection and health-related quality of life. Results A total of 364 patients (invasive weaning, n = 182; non-invasive weaning, n = 182) were randomised. Groups were well matched at baseline. There was no difference between the invasive weaning and non-invasive weaning groups in median time to liberation from ventilation {invasive weaning 108 hours [interquartile range (IQR) 57–351 hours] vs. non-invasive weaning 104.3 hours [IQR 34.5–297 hours]; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.39; p = 0.352}. There was also no difference in mortality between groups at any time point. Patients in the non-invasive weaning group had fewer IMV days [invasive weaning 4 days (IQR 2–11 days) vs. non-invasive weaning 1 day (IQR 0–7 days); adjusted mean difference –3.1 days, 95% CI –5.75 to –0.51 days]. In addition, fewer non-invasive weaning patients required antibiotics for a respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00; p = 0.048]. A higher proportion of non-invasive weaning patients required reintubation than those in the invasive weaning group (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.24). The within-trial economic evaluation showed that NIV was associated with a lower net cost and a higher net effect, and was dominant in health economic terms. The probability that NIV was cost-effective was estimated at 0.58 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation. However, patients who underwent non-invasive weaning had fewer days requiring IMV and required fewer antibiotics for respiratory infections. Future work In patients who fail a SBT, which factors predict an adverse outcome (reintubation, tracheostomy, death) if extubated and weaned using NIV? Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15635197. 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. 23, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (52) ◽  
pp. 1-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Freddie C Hamdy ◽  
Daisy Elliott ◽  
Steffi le Conte ◽  
Lucy C Davies ◽  
Richéal M Burns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Data Capture ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Intermediate Risk

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Objectives To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. Design We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. Setting Five NHS hospitals in England. Participants Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. Interventions Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. Primary outcome measure The randomisation of 80 men. Secondary outcome measures Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. Results Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and ‘tips’ documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) – with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants – than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. Conclusions Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted. Future work Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303. 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. 22, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

OP75 Facts And Values In Health Technology Assessment: The Case Of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Bart Bloemen ◽  
Maarten Jansen ◽  
Wouter Rijke ◽  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Gert Vanderwilt
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Healthcare Technologies ◽  
General Abstract ◽  
Structured Questionnaire

IntroductionHealth Technology Assessment (HTA) is where facts and values meet: the evidence that is considered relevant to the assessment of a technology depends on the value framework used. In the context of the European project VALIDATE (Values in doing assessments of healthcare technologies), we assessed to what extent this interplay between facts and values is acknowledged in HTA reports on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Our aim is to gain a better understanding of this fact-value relationship, and to contribute to the development of capacity for ethical analyses in HTA.MethodsFive reviewers independently analyzed HTA reports on NIPT, obtained from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA database, by answering a structured questionnaire on: (i) arguments, values, and conclusions; (ii) relations between values and collected evidence; (iii) operationalizations of the values involved. Ethical argumentation was analyzed using the method of specifying norms. This method holds that for general, abstract ethical principles to reach concrete cases, principles need to be specified in such a way as to achieve maximal coherence between different value commitments and practice. The results of the analysis were discussed in joint meetings to arrive at a consensus on interpretation.ResultsOur results show that the pivotal role of values in defining what counts as relevant evidence and why, is rarely acknowledged. The same holds for the importance of specifying values as a means to achieve greater coherence between the use of healthcare technologies and a range of values.ConclusionsThere is ample room for improvement in clarifying the role of values in HTA: they can serve to explain and justify what evidence is considered relevant to the assessment of a healthcare technology. Recognizing that abstract values need specification in order to reach concrete cases opens up new opportunities for exploring in what way values are affected by healthcare technologies.

scholarly journals Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 178-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Drummond ◽  
David Banta
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Short Run

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe generally the development and present situation with health technology assessment (HTA) in the United Kingdom.Methods: The methods used are a review of important materials that have described the development process and present situation, supplemented by some personal experiences.Results: The United Kingdom has been characterized historically as a country with a strong interest in evidence in health care, both clinical trials for efficacy and cost-effectiveness analyses. However, this evidence was not well-linked to the needs of the National Health Services (NHS) before formation of the NHS R&D Programme in 1991, The R&D Programme brought substantial resources into HTA and related activities, with the central aim of improving health care in Britain and increasing value for money. However, policy makers as well as staff of the R&D Programme were dissatisfied with the use of the HTA results in clinical and administrative practice. Therefore, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) was formed in 1999. NICE issues guidance intended to influence practical decision making in health care at the national and local levels, based on efficacy information and, in some cases, economic analyses. NICE is now also seeking ways to maximize impacts on practice.Conclusions: The UK experience shows that information on clinical and cost-effectiveness may not be enough to change practice, at least in the short-run. Still, one may conclude that the United Kingdom now has one of the few most important and influential HTA programs in the world.

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 Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (51) ◽  
pp. 1-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Inwald ◽  
Ruth R Canter ◽  
Kerry Woolfall ◽  
Caitlin B O’Hara ◽  
Paul R Mouncey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Fluid Bolus ◽  
Site Staff ◽  
Pilot Rct ◽  
The Uk

Background There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm. Objectives To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial – a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK. Design (1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents’ views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study. Setting (1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England. Participants (1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study. Interventions (1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock. Main outcome measures (1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures. Results (1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial. Conclusions Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Future work Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462. 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. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Assessment of Decisions and Cost-Effectiveness Criteria Considered by Seven Health Technology Assessment Agencies

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. A752
Author(s):  
R Puig-Peiró ◽  
L Planellas ◽  
A Gilabert Perramon ◽  
M Roset ◽  
C Barrull ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology

scholarly journals HTA AND VALUE - A COMMENTARY

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-375
Author(s):  
Michael D. Rawlins
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Value Proposition ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Societal Costs ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Policy Forum

The notion of value, in the evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, was the subject of discussion at the HTAi Policy Forum in February 2013. A summary of its discussions and conclusions is published in this issue of the journal. This commentary considers the implications of the proposal that health technology assessment (HTA) agencies should include, in the value proposition, wider societal costs and benefits as well as incorporating innovative promise.

TeCHO+ program in Gujarat: a protocol for health technology assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 209-214
Author(s):  
Somen Saha ◽  
Priya Kotwani ◽  
Apurvakumar Pandya ◽  
Deepak Saxena ◽  
Tapasvi Puwar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Tracking System ◽  
Newborn Care ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The State ◽  
Family Welfare ◽  
The Impact

The Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, is implementing a program named Technology for Community Health Operation or TeCHO+ addressing state’s priority health issues. This program envisages replacing the existing mother and child tracking system or e-Mamta application in the state. This program is based on ImTeCHO—Innovative Mobile Technology for Community Health Operations—which was piloted in Jhagadia, Bharuch district of Gujarat in 2013. The program showed improvements not only in terms of coverage of maternal and newborn care packages averting malnutrition but also was cost-effective. This paper details the protocol for health technology assessment to assess the impact of TeCHO+ program on data quality, improvement in service delivery coverage, reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as assess the cost-effectiveness. The study will be conducted in five districts of the state. A mixed-method approach will be adopted. Data will be validated in a phased manner over a period of 3 years along with an assessment of key outcome indicators. Additionally, key informant interviews will be conducted and cost data will be gathered to perform cost-effectiveness analysis. The study will inform policymakers about the impact of TeCHO+ program on quality, access and cost-effectiveness of healthcare services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document