scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Two Dry Needling Interventions for Plantar Heel Pain: A Secondary Analysis of an RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1777
Author(s):  
Daniel Fernández ◽  
Zaid Al-Boloushi ◽  
Pablo Bellosta-López ◽  
Pablo Herrero ◽  
Manuel Gómez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Heel Pain ◽  
Dry Needling ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Plantar Heel Pain ◽  
Life Years

Plantar heel pain is a common cause of foot pain that affects patients’ quality of life and represents a significant cost for the healthcare system. Dry needling and percutaneous needle electrolysis are two minimally invasive treatments that were shown to be effective for the management of plantar heel pain. The aim of our study was to compare these two treatments in terms of health and economic consequences based on the results of a published randomized controlled trial. For this, we evaluated the costs from the point of view of the hospital and we carried out a cost-effectiveness study using quality of life as the main variable according to the Eq-5D-5L questionnaire. The cost of the complete treatment with dry needling (DN) was €178.86, while the percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) was €200.90. The quality of life of patients improved and was translated into +0.615 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for DN and +0.669 for PNE. PNE presented an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €411.34/QALY against DN. These results indicate that PNE had a better cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of plantar heel pain than DN.

scholarly journals (Cost-)effectiveness of lower extremity nerve decompression surgery in subjects with diabetes: the DeCompression (DECO) trial—study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e035644
Author(s):  
Willem D Rinkel ◽  
Tirzah M Fakkel ◽  
Manuel Castro Cabezas ◽  
Erwin Birnie ◽  
J Henk Coert
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Productivity Cost ◽  
Nerve Decompression

IntroductionThe peripheral nerves of patients with diabetes are often pathologically swollen, which results in entrapment at places of anatomical narrowing. This results in nerve dysfunction. Surgical treatment of compression neuropathies in the lower extremities (lower extremity nerve decompression (LEND)) results in relief of symptoms and gain in peripheral nerve function, which may lead to less sensory loss (short term) and less associated detrimental effects including foot ulceration and amputations, and lower costs (long term). The aim of the DeCompression trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and (cost-)effectiveness of surgical decompression of compressed lower extremity nerves (LEND surgery) compared with patients treated with conventional (non-surgical) care.Methods and analysisA stratified randomised (1 to 1) controlled trial comparing LEND surgery (intervention) with conventional non-surgical care (control strategy) in subjects with diabetes with problems of neuropathy due to compression neuropathies in the lower extremity. Randomisation is stratified for participating hospital (n=11) and gender. Patients and controls have the same follow-up at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 48 months. Participants (n=344) will be recruited in 12 months and enrolled in all affiliated hospitals in which they receive both the intervention or conventional non-surgical care and follow-up. Outcome assessors are blinded to group assignment. Primary outcome: disease-specific quality of life (Norfolk Quality of Life Questionnaire—Diabetic Neuropathy). Secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D5L), 36-item Short Form (SF-36)), plantar sensation (Rotterdam Diabetic Foot Test Battery), incidence of ulcerations/amputations, resource use and productivity loss (Medical Cost Questionnaire, Productivity Cost Questionnaire) during follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be estimated on the basis of the collected empirical data and a cost-utility model.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of Utrecht University Medical Center (reference: NL68312.041.19v5, protocol number: 19-335/M). Dissemination of results will be via journal articles and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNetherlandsTrial Registry NL7664.

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 Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured social coaching intervention for people with psychosis (SCENE): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050627
Author(s):  
Domenico Giacco ◽  
Agnes Chevalier ◽  
Megan Patterson ◽  
Thomas Hamborg ◽  
Rianna Mortimer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Social Activities ◽  
Social Contacts ◽  
Coaching Intervention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPeople with psychosis tend to have smaller social networks than both people in the general population and other people with long-term health conditions. Small social networks are associated with poor quality of life. Preliminary evidence suggests that coaching patients to increase their social contacts may be effective. In this study, we assessed whether structured social coaching improves the quality of life of patients with psychosis (primary outcome) compared with an active control group, receiving information on local social activities.Methods and analysisA structured social coaching intervention was developed based on the literature and refined through stakeholder involvement. It draws on principles from motivational interviewing, solution focused therapy and structured information giving. It is provided over a 6-month period and can be delivered by a range of different mental health professionals. Its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are assessed in a randomised controlled trial, compared with an active control group, in which participants are given an information booklet on local social activities. Participants are aged 18 or over, have a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder (International Classification of Disease: F20–29) and capacity to provide informed consent. Participants are assessed at baseline and at 6, 12 and 18 months after individual randomisation. The primary outcome is quality of life at 6 months (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life). We hypothesise that the effects on quality of life are mediated by an increase in social contacts. Secondary outcomes are symptoms, social situation and time spent in social activities. Costs and cost-effectiveness analyses will consider service use and health-related quality of life.Ethics and disseminationNational Health Service REC London Hampstead (19/LO/0088) provided a favourable opinion. Findings will be disseminated through a website, social media, scientific papers and user-friendly reports, in collaboration with a lived experience advisory panel.Trial registration numberISRCTN15815862.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (61) ◽  
pp. 1-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Justin Clark ◽  
Lee J Middleton ◽  
Natalie AM Cooper ◽  
Lavanya Diwakar ◽  
Elaine Denny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Inpatient Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Abnormal Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Uterine Polyps

BackgroundUterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.ObjectivesTo test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined.DesignA multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.SettingOutpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.ParticipantsWomen with AUB – defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding – and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps.InterventionsWe randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman’s assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsAt 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.ConclusionsWhen treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document