Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Central Venous Catheters in the UK: A Secondary Publication from the CATCH Clinical Trial

Background: Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce the risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients treated in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). However, it is unclear if they are cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Methods: Economic evaluation alongside the CATCH trial (ISRCTN34884569) to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline), heparin-bonded and standard polyurethane CVCs. The 6-month costs of CVCs and hospital admissions and visits were determined from administrative hospital data and case report forms. Results: BSIs were detected in 3.59% (18/502) of patients randomized to standard, 1.44% (7/486) to antibiotic and 3.42% (17/497) to heparin CVCs. Lengths of hospital stay did not differ between intervention groups. Total mean costs (95% confidence interval) were: £45,663 (£41,647–£50,009) for antibiotic, £42,065 (£38,322–£46,110) for heparin, and £44,503 (£40,619–£48,666) for standard CVCs. As heparin CVCs were not clinically effective at reducing BSI rate compared to standard CVCs, they were considered not to be cost-effective. The ICER for antibiotic vs. standard CVCs, of £54,057 per BSI avoided, was sensitive to the analytical time horizon. Conclusions: Substituting standard CVCs for antibiotic CVCs in PICUs will result in reduced occurrence of BSI but there is uncertainty as to whether this would be a cost-effective strategy for the NH

Resource Modelling: The Missing Piece of the HTA Jigsaw?

Within health technology assessment (HTA), cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact analyses have been broadly accepted as important components of decision making. However, whilst they address efficiency and affordability, the issue of implementation and feasibility has been largely ignored. HTA commonly takes place within a deliberative framework that captures issues of implementation and feasibility in a qualitative manner. We argue that only through a formal quantitative assessment of resource constraints can these issues be fully addressed. This paper argues the need for resource modelling to be considered explicitly in HTA. First, economic evaluation and budget impact models are described along with their limitations in evaluating feasibility. Next, resource modelling is defined and its usefulness is described along with examples of resource modelling from the literature. Then, the important issues that need to be considered when undertaking resource modelling are described before setting out recommendations for the use of resource modelling in HTA

Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background: Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation. Methods: We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care. Results: The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. Conclusions: We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care

Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (TOPCAT-G): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility trial

Background: Gynaecological cancers are diagnosed in over 1000 women in Wales every year. We estimate that this is costing the National Health Service (NHS) in excess of £1 million per annum for routine follow-up appointments alone. Follow-up care is not evidence-based, and there are no definitive guidelines from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the type of follow-up that should be delivered. Standard care is to provide a regular medical review of the patient in a hospital-based outpatient clinic for a minimum of 5 years. This study is to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed alternative where the patients are delivered a specialist nurse-led telephone intervention known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (OPCAT-G), which comprised of a protocol-based patient education, patient empowerment and structured needs assessment. Methods: The study will recruit female patients who have completed treatment for cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) in North Wales. Following recruitment, participants will be randomised to one of two arms in the trial (standard care or OPCAT-G intervention). The primary outcomes for the trial are patient recruitment and attrition rates, and the secondary outcomes are quality of life, health status and capability, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ- 5D-3L and ICECAP-A measures. Additionally, a client service receipt inventory (CSRI) will be collected in order to pilot an economic evaluation. Discussion: The results from this feasibility study will be used to inform a fully powered randomised controlled trial to evaluate the difference between standard care and the OPCAT-G intervention. Trial registration: ISRCTN45565436

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the Patient Concerns Inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial

This trial is funded by the RfPB on behalf of the NIHR (PB-PG-0215-36047).Background: The consequences of treatment for Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients has profound detrimental impacts such as impaired QOL, emotional distress, delayed recovery and frequent use of healthcare. The aim of this trial is to determine if the routine use of the Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) package in review clinics during the first year following treatment can improve overall quality of life, reduce the social-emotional impact of cancer and reduce levels of distress. Furthermore, we aim to describe the economic costs and benefits of using the PCI. Methods: This will be a cluster preference randomised control trial with consultants either ‘using’ or ‘not using’ the PCI package at clinic. It will involve two centres Leeds and Liverpool. 416 eligible patients from at least 10 consultant clusters are required to show a clinically meaningful difference in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the percentage of participants with less than good overall quality of life at the final one-year clinic as measured by the University of Washington QOL questionnaire version 4 (UWQOLv4). Secondary outcomes at one-year are the mean social-emotional subscale (UWQOLv4) score, Distress Thermometer (DT) score ≥ 4, and key health economic measures (QALY-EQ-5D-5 L; CSRI). Discussion: This trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a consultation intervention package based around the PCI used at routine follow-up clinics following treatment of head and neck cancer with curative intent. If this intervention is (cost) effective for patients, the next step will be to promote wider use of this approach as standard care in clinical practice. Trial registration: 32,382. Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT03086629. Protocol: Version 3.0, 1st July 2017.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

HEALTH ECONOMICS ANALYSIS PLANS: WHERE ARE WE NOW?

Meeting abstrac

Counter examples to an order barrier for stable multistep discretizations of linear hyperbolic equations

Supported by: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Bonn (DE)SIGLETIB: RN 8680 (39) / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekDEGerman