On the probability of cost-effectiveness using data from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Acceptability curves have been proposed for quantifying the probability that a treatment under investigation in a clinical trial is cost-effective. Various definitions and estimation methods have been proposed. Loosely speaking, all the definitions, Bayesian or otherwise, relate to the probability that the treatment under consideration is cost-effective as a function of the value placed on a unit of effectiveness. These definitions are, in fact, expressions of the certainty with which the current evidence would lead us to believe that the treatment under consideration is cost-effective, and are dependent on the amount of evidence (i.e. sample size). METHODS: An alternative for quantifying the probability that the treatment under consideration is cost-effective, which is independent of sample size, is proposed. RESULTS: Non-parametric methods are given for point and interval estimation. In addition, these methods provide a non-parametric estimator and confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An example is provided. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed parameter for quantifying the probability that a new therapy is cost-effective is superior to the acceptability curve because it is not sample size dependent and because it can be interpreted as the proportion of patients who would benefit if given the new therapy. Non-parametric methods are used to estimate the parameter and its variance, providing the appropriate confidence intervals and test of hypothesis

Oral ondansetron administration to nondehydrated children with diarrhea and associated vomiting in emergency departments in Pakistan: A randomized controlled trial

Study objective: We determine whether single-dose oral ondansetron administration to children with vomiting as a result of acute gastroenteritis without dehydration reduces administration of intravenous fluid rehydration.Methods: In this 2-hospital, double-blind, placebo-controlled, emergency department–based, randomized trial conducted in Karachi Pakistan, we recruited children aged 0.5 to 5.0 years, without dehydration, who had diarrhea and greater than or equal to 1 episode of vomiting within 4 hours of arrival. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), through an Internet-based randomization service using a stratified variable-block randomization scheme, to single-dose oral ondansetron or placebo. The primary endpoint was intravenous rehydration (administration of 20 mL/kg of an isotonic fluid during 4 hours) within 72 hours of randomization.Results: Participant median age was 15 months (interquartile range 10 to 26) and 59.4% (372/626) were male patients. Intravenous rehydration use was 12.1% (38/314) and 11.9% (37/312) in the placebo and ondansetron groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.61; difference 0.2%; 95% CI of the difference –4.9% to 5.4%). Bolus fluid administration occurred within 72 hours of randomization in 10.8% (34/314) and 10.3% (27/312) of children administered placebo and ondansetron, respectively (odds ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.59). A multivariable regression model fitted with treatment group and adjusted for antiemetic administration, antibiotics, zinc prerandomization, and vomiting frequency prerandomization yielded similar results (odds ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.53). There was no interaction between treatment group and age, greater than or equal to 3 stools in the preceding 24 hours, or greater than or equal to 3 vomiting episodes in the preceding 24 hours.Conclusion: Oral administration of a single dose of ondansetron did not result in a reduction in intravenous rehydration use. In children without dehydration, ondansetron does not improve clinical outcomes

The African Women's Protocol: Bringing Attention to Reproductive Rights and the MDGs

Andrew Gibbs and colleagues discuss the African Women's Protocol, a framework for ensuring reproductive rights are supported throughout the continent and for supporting interventions to improve women's reproductive health, including the MDGs

Integrated collaborative care teams to enhance service delivery to youth with mental health and substance use challenges : Protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Among youth, the prevalence of mental health and addiction (MHA) disorders is roughly 20%, yet youth are challenged to access evidence-based services in a timely fashion. To address MHA system gaps, this study tests the benefits of an Integrated Collaborative Care Team (ICCT) model for youth with MHA challenges. A rapid, stepped-care approach geared to need in a youth-friendly environment is expected to result in better youth MHA outcomes. Moreover, the ICCT approach is expected to decrease service wait-times, be more youth-friendly and familyfriendly, and be more cost-effective, providing substantial public health benefits. Methods and analysis: In partnership with four community agencies, four adolescent psychiatry hospital departments, youth and family members with lived experience of MHA service use, and other stakeholders, we have developed an innovative model of collaborative, community-based service provision involving rapid access to needs-based MHA services. A total of 500 youth presenting for hospital-based, outpatient psychiatric service will be randomised to ICCT services or hospital-based treatment as usual, following a pragmatic randomised controlled trial design. The primary outcome variable will be the youth's functioning, assessed at intake, 6 months and 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include clinical change, youth/family satisfaction and perception of care, empowerment, engagement and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Intent-to-treat analyses will be used on repeated-measures data, along with cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, to determine intervention effectiveness. Ethics and dissemination: Research Ethics Board approval has been received from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, as well as institutional ethical approval from participating community sites. This study will be conducted according to Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Participants will provide informed consent prior to study participation and data confidentiality will be ensured. A data safety monitoring panel will monitor the study. Results will be disseminated through community and peer-reviewed academic channels

Multicenter Trial of a Combination Probiotic for Children with Gastroenteritis.

Background Gastroenteritis accounts for approximately 1.7 million visits to the emergency department (ED) by children in the United States every year. Data to determine whether the use of probiotics improves outcomes in these children are lacking. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 886 children 3 to 48 months of age with gastroenteritis who presented to six pediatric EDs in Canada. Participants received a 5-day course of a combination probiotic product containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011 and L. helveticus R0052, at a dose of 4.0×10 Results Moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis within 14 days after enrollment occurred in 108 of 414 participants (26.1%) who were assigned to probiotics and 102 of 413 participants (24.7%) who were assigned to placebo (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.46; P=0.72). After adjustment for trial site, age, detection of rotavirus in stool, and frequency of diarrhea and vomiting before enrollment, trial-group assignment did not predict moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.49; P=0.74). There were no significant differences between the probiotic group and the placebo group in the median duration of diarrhea (52.5 hours [interquartile range, 18.3 to 95.8] and 55.5 hours [interquartile range, 20.2 to 102.3], respectively; P=0.31) or vomiting (17.7 hours [interquartile range, 0 to 58.6] and 18.7 hours [interquartile range, 0 to 51.6], P=0.18), the percentages of participants with unscheduled visits to a health care provider (30.2% and 26.6%; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.62; P=0.27), and the percentage of participants who reported an adverse event (34.8% and 38.7%; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.11; P=0.21). Conclusions In children who presented to the emergency department with gastroenteritis, twice-daily administration of a combined L. rhamnosus-L. helveticus probiotic did not prevent the development of moderate-to-severe gastroenteritis within 14 days after enrollment. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PROGUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01853124 .)

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: Study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Background Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of nonoperative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed. Methods Multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5–16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (≫ or \u3c48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children. Discussion The APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies. Trial registration number clinicaltrials.gov:NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial : the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effect of a pediatric early warning system on all-cause mortality in Hospitalized pediatric patients: The epoch randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: There is limited evidence that the use of severity of illness scores in pediatric patients can facilitate timely admission to the intensive care unit or improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System (BedsidePEWS) on all-cause hospital mortality and late admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac arrest, and ICU resource use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter cluster randomized trial of 21 hospitals located in 7 countries (Belgium, Canada, England, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, and the Netherlands) that provided inpatient pediatric care for infants (gestational age ≥37 weeks) to teenagers (aged ≤18 years). Participating hospitals had continuous physician staffing and subspecialized pediatric services. Patient enrollment began on February 28, 2011, and ended on June 21, 2015. Follow-up ended on July 19, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: The BedsidePEWS intervention (10 hospitals) was compared with usual care (no severity of illness score; 11 hospitals). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was a significant clinical deterioration event, which was defined as a composite outcome reflecting late ICU admission. Regression analyses accounted for hospital-level clustering and baseline rates. RESULTS: Among 144539 patient discharges at 21 randomized hospitals, there were 559 443 patient-days and 144539 patients (100%) completed the trial. All-cause hospital mortality was 1.93 per 1000 patient discharges at hospitals with BedsidePEWS and 1.56 per 1000 patient discharges at hospitals with usual care (adjusted between-group rate difference, 0.01 [95% CI, -0.80 to 0.81 per 1000 patient discharges]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.61 to 1.69]; P =.96). Significant clinical deterioration events occurred during 0.50 per 1000 patient-days at hospitals with BedsidePEWS vs 0.84 per 1000 patient-days at hospitals with usual care (adjusted between-group rate difference, -0.34 [95% CI, -0.73 to 0.05 per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.97]; P =.03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of the Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System compared with usual care did not significantly decrease all-cause mortality among hospitalized pediatric patients. These findings do not support the use of this system to reduce mortality

Adaptive Management and the Value of Information: Learning Via Intervention in Epidemiology

Optimal intervention for disease outbreaks is often impeded by severe scientific uncertainty. Adaptive management (AM), long-used in natural resource management, is a structured decision-making approach to solving dynamic problems that accounts for the value of resolving uncertainty via real-time evaluation of alternative models. We propose an AM approach to design and evaluate intervention strategies in epidemiology, using real-time surveillance to resolve model uncertainty as management proceeds, with foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) culling and measles vaccination as case studies. We use simulations of alternative intervention strategies under competing models to quantify the effect of model uncertainty on decision making, in terms of the value of information, and quantify the benefit of adaptive versus static intervention strategies. Culling decisions during the 2001 UK FMD outbreak were contentious due to uncertainty about the spatial scale of transmission. The expected benefit of resolving this uncertainty prior to a new outbreak on a UK-like landscape would be £45–£60 million relative to the strategy that minimizes livestock losses averaged over alternate transmission models. AM during the outbreak would be expected to recover up to £20.1 million of this expected benefit. AM would also recommend a more conservative initial approach (culling of infected premises and dangerous contact farms) than would a fixed strategy (which would additionally require culling of contiguous premises). For optimal targeting of measles vaccination, based on an outbreak in Malawi in 2010, AM allows better distribution of resources across the affected region; its utility depends on uncertainty about both the at-risk population and logistical capacity. When daily vaccination rates are highly constrained, the optimal initial strategy is to conduct a small, quick campaign; a reduction in expected burden of approximately 10,000 cases could result if campaign targets can be updated on the basis of the true susceptible population. Formal incorporation of a policy to update future management actions in response to information gained in the course of an outbreak can change the optimal initial response and result in significant cost savings. AM provides a framework for using multiple models to facilitate public-health decision making and an objective basis for updating management actions in response to improved scientific understanding