Direct Costs of Healthcare for Children with Type 1 Diabetes Using a CGM System: A Health Economic Analysis of the VIDIKI Telemedicine Study in a German Setting

Aims The Virtual Diabetes Outpatient Clinic for Children and Adolescents (VIDIKI) study was a 6-month quasi-randomized, multicentre study followed by an extension phase to evaluate the effects of monthly video consultations in addition to regular care. A health economic analysis was conducted to assess the direct costs. Methods The cost data of 240 study participants (1–16 years of age) with type 1 diabetes who were already using a continuous glucose monitoring system were collected in the first 6 months of the study. The intervention group (IG) received monthly video consultations plus regular care, and the waiting control group (WG) received only regular care. Cost data were collected for a comparable anonymized group of children from the participating health insurance companies during the 6-month period before the study started (aggregated data group [AG]). Results Cost data were analysed for the AG (N=840) 6 months before study initiation and those for the study participants (N=225/240). Hospital treatment was the highest cost category in the AG. There was a cost shift and cost increase in the IG and WG, whereby diabetes supplies were the highest cost category. The mean direct diabetes-associated 6-month costs were € 4,702 (IG) and € 4,936 (WG). Conclusion The cost development within the cost collection period over two years possibly reflects the switch to higher-priced medical supplies. Video consultation as an add-on service resulted in a small but nonsignificant reduction in the overall costs.

Anaesthesia Choice for Creation of Arteriovenous Fistula (ACCess) study protocol : a randomised controlled trial comparing primary unassisted patency at 1 year of primary arteriovenous fistulae created under regional compared to local anaesthesia

IntroductionArteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the ‘gold standard’ vascular access for haemodialysis. Universal usage is limited, however, by a high early failure rate. Several small, single-centre studies have demonstrated better early patency rates for AVF created under regional anaesthesia (RA) compared with local anaesthesia (LA). The mechanistic hypothesis is that the sympathetic blockade associated with RA causes vasodilatation and increased blood flow through the new AVF. Despite this, considerable variation in practice exists in the UK. A high-quality, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to definitively inform practice.Methods and analysisThe Anaesthesia Choice for Creation of Arteriovenous Fistula (ACCess) study is a multicentre, observer-blinded RCT comparing primary radiocephalic/brachiocephalic AVF created under regional versus LA. The primary outcome is primary unassisted AVF patency at 1 year. Access-specific (eg, stenosis/thrombosis), patient-specific (including health-related quality of life) and safety secondary outcomes will be evaluated. Health economic analysis will also be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationThe ACCess study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research and ethics committee number 3 (20/WS/0178). Results will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journals within 12 months of completion of the trial. We will also present our findings at key national and international renal and anaesthetic meetings, and support dissemination of trial outcomes via renal patient groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN14153938.SponsorNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde GN19RE456, Protocol V.1.3 (8 May 2021), REC/IRAS ID: 290482.

Health economic analysis for the ‘CURE Project’ pilot: a hospital-based tobacco dependency treatment service in Greater Manchester

IntroductionTreating tobacco dependency in patients admitted to acute care National Health Service (NHS) trusts is a key priority in the NHS 10-year plan. This paper sets out the results of a health economic analysis for ‘The CURE Project’ pilot; a new hospital-based tobacco dependency service.MethodsA health economic analysis to understand the costs of the intervention (both for the inpatient service and postdischarge costs), the return on investment (ROI) and the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the CURE Project pilot in Greater Manchester. ROI and cost per QALY were calculated using the European Study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco and Greater Manchester Cost Benefit Analysis Tools.ResultsThe total intervention costs for the inpatient service in the 6-month CURE pilot were £96 224 with a cost per patient who smokes of £40.21. The estimated average cost per patient who was discharged on pharmacotherapy was £97.40. The cost per quit (22% quit rate for smokers at 12 weeks post discharge) was £475. The gross financial ROI ratio was £2.12 return per £1 invested with a payback period of 4 years. The cashable financial ROI ratio was £1.06 return per £1 invested with a payback period of 10 years. The public value ROI ratio was £30.49 per £1 invested. The cost per QALY for this programme was £487.DiscussionThe CURE Project pilot has been shown to be exceptionally cost-effective with highly significant ROI in this health economic analysis. This supports the NHS priority to embed high-quality tobacco addiction treatment services in acute NHS trusts, and the CURE Project provides a blueprint and framework to achieve this.

The economic impact of two diagnostic strategies in the management of restorations in primary teeth: a health economic analysis plan for a trial-based economic evaluation

Background Different approaches have been used by dentists to base their decision. Among them, there are the aesthetical issues that may lead to more interventionist approaches. Indeed, using a more interventionist strategy (the World Dental Federation - FDI), more replacements tend to be indicated than using a minimally invasive one (based on the Caries Around Restorations and Sealants—CARS). Since the resources related to the long-term health effects of these strategies have not been explored, the economic impact of using the less-invasive strategy is still uncertain. Thus, this health economic analysis plan aims to describe methodologic approaches for conducting a trial-based economic evaluation that aims to assess whether a minimally invasive strategy is more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy for managing restorations in primary teeth and extrapolating these findings to a longer time horizon. Methods A trial-based economic evaluation will be conducted, including three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and one cost-utility analysis (CUA). These analyses will be based on the main trial (CARDEC-03/NCT03520309), in which children aged 3 to 10 were included and randomized to one of the diagnostic strategies (based on FDI or CARS). An examiner will assess children’s restorations using the randomized strategy, and treatment will be recommended according to the same criteria. The time horizon for this study is 2 years, and we will adopt the societal perspective. The average costs per child for 24 months will be calculated. Three different cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) will be performed. For CEAs, the effects will be the number of operative interventions (primary CEA analysis), the time to these new interventions, the percentage of patients who did not need new interventions in the follow-up, and changes in children’s oral health-related quality of life (secondary analyses). For CUA, the effect will be tooth-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. Finally, we will assess the difference when using the minimally invasive strategy for each health effect (∆effect) compared to the conventional strategy (based on FDI) as the reference strategy. The same will be calculated for related costs (∆cost). The discount rate of 5% will be applied for costs and effects. We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to handle uncertainties. The net benefit will be calculated, and acceptability curves plotted using different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Using Markov models, a longer-term economic evaluation will be carried out with trial results extrapolated over a primary tooth lifetime horizon. Discussion The main trial is ongoing, and data collection is still not finished. Therefore, economic evaluation has not commenced. We hypothesize that conventional strategy will be associated with more need for replacements of restorations in primary molars. These replacements may lead to more reinterventions, leading to higher costs after 2 years. The health effects will be a crucial aspect to take into account when deciding whether the minimally invasive strategy will be more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy when considering the management of restorations in primary teeth. Finally, patients/parents preferences and consequent utility values may also influence this final conclusion about the economic aspects of implementing the minimally invasive approach for managing restorations in clinical practice. Therefore, these trial-based economic evaluations may bring actual evidence of the economic impact of such interventions. Trial registration NCT03520309. Registered May 9, 2018. Economic evaluations (the focus of this plan) are not initiated at the moment.

Early versus differed arterial catheterisation in critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure: a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority controlled trial: the EVERDAC protocol

IntroductionThe use of peripheral indwelling arterial catheter for haemodynamic monitoring is widespread in the intensive care unit and is recommended in patients with shock. However, there is no evidence that the arterial catheter could improve patient’s outcome, whereas the burden of morbidity generated is significant (pain, thrombosis, infections). We hypothesise that patients with shock may be managed without an arterial catheter.Methods and analysisThe EVERDAC study is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial, comparing a less invasive intervention (ie, no arterial catheter insertion until felt absolutely needed, according to predefined safety criteria) or usual care (ie, systematic arterial catheter insertion in the early hours of shock). 1010 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality by 28 days after inclusion. A health economic analysis will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Île de France V, registration number 61606 CAT 2, 19 july 2018) and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03680963.

The economic impact of two diagnostic strategies in the management of restorations in primary teeth: a health economic analysis plan for a trial-based economic evaluation

Background Different approaches have been used in the clinical routine to assess restorations and determine the need for further reinterventions. In general, dentists based their decision in different parameters, including aesthetical ones, leading to a more interventionist approach. Indeed, using a more interventionist strategy (the World Dental Federation - FDI), more replacements tend to be indicated than using a minimally invasive one (based on the Caries Around Restorations and Sealants -CARS). Since the resources related to the long-term health effects of these strategies have not been explored, the economic impact of using the less invasive strategy is still uncertain. Thus, this health economic analysis plan aims to describe methodologic strategies for conducting a trial-based economic evaluation that aims to assess whether a minimally invasive strategy is more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy for managing restorations in primary teeth. Methods A trial-based economic evaluation will be conducted, including three cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and one cost-utility analysis (CUA). These analyses will be based on the main trial (CARDEC-03/NCT03520309), in which children aged 3 to 10 were included and randomized to one of the diagnostic strategies (based on FDI or CARS). An examiner will assess children's restorations using the randomized strategy, and treatment will be recommended according to the same criteria. The time horizon for this study is two years, and we will adopt the societal perspective. The average costs per child for 24 months will be calculated. Three different cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed. For CEAs, the effects will be the number of operative interventions, the percentage of patients who did not need new interventions in the follow-up, and the scores obtained with a questionnaire to assess children’s oral health-related quality of life. For CUA, the effect will be quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. Finally, we will assess the difference when using the minimally invasive strategy for each health effect (∆effect) compared to the conventional strategy (based on FDI) as the reference strategy. The same will be calculated for related costs (∆cost). The discount rate of 5% will be applied for costs and effects. We will perform deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to handle uncertainties. The net benefit will be calculated, and acceptability curves plotted using different willingness-to-pay thresholds. A longer-term economic evaluation will be carried out with trial results extrapolated over a primary tooth lifetime horizon using Markov modelling methods. Discussion The main trial is ongoing, and data collection is still not finished. Therefore, economic evaluation has not commenced. We hypothesize that conventional strategy will be associated with more need for replacements of restorations in primary molars. These replacements may lead to more reinterventions, leading to higher costs after two years. The health effects will be a crucial aspect to take into account when deciding whether the minimally invasive strategy will be more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy when considering the management of restorations in primary teeth. Finally, patients/parents preferences and consequent utility values may also influence this final conclusion about the economic aspects of implementing the minimally invasive approach for managing restorations in clinical practice. Therefore, this trial-based economic evaluations may bring actual evidence of the economic impact of such these interventions. Trial registration: NCT03520309. Registered May 9th, 2018. Economic evaluations (the focus of this plan) are not initiated at the moment.