Economic evaluation alongside pragmatic randomised trials: developing a standard operating procedure for clinical trials units

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is wide recognition that pragmatic randomised trials are the best vehicle for economic evaluation. This is because trials provide the best chance of ensuring internal validity, not least through the rigorous prospective collection of patient-specific data. Furthermore the marginal cost of collecting economic data alongside clinical data is typically modest. UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) does not require a standard operating procedure (SOP) for economic evaluation as a prerequisite for trial unit registration. We judge that such a SOP facilitates the integration of health economics into trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A collaboration between health economists and trialists at Bangor University led to the development of a SOP for economic evaluation alongside pragmatic trials, in addition to the twenty SOPs required by UKCRC for registration, which include randomisation, data management and statistical analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our recent telephone survey suggests that no other UKCRC-registered trials unit currently has an economic SOP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We argue that UKCRC should require, from all Trials Units undertaking economic evaluation and seeking registration or re-registration, a SOP for economic evaluation as one of their portfolio of supporting SOPs.</p

Tailored versus generic knowledge brokering to integrate mood management into smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings : Protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Both tobacco smoking and depression are major public health problems associated with high morbidity and mortality. In addition, individuals with depression are almost twice as likely to smoke and less likely to achieve smoking cessation. In the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program, an established smoking cessation program in Ontario, Canada, 38% of smokers in primary care settings have current or past depression with 6-month quit rates that are significantly lower than those without depression (33% versus 40%, P<.001). Integrating self-help mood management (eg, relaxation exercises and mood monitoring) with smoking cessation treatment increases long-term quit rates by 12%-20%. However, integration in real-world settings has not been reported. It is unclear which knowledge translation strategy would be more effective for motivating clinicians to provide resources on mood management to eligible patients. Objective: The objectives of this study are to investigate the following comparisons among depressed smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation program: 1) the effectiveness of generalized, exclusively email-based prompts versus a personalized knowledge broker in implementing mood management interventions; 2) the effectiveness of the two knowledge translation strategies on smoking quit rates; and 3) the incremental costs of the two knowledge translation strategies on the implementation of mood management interventions. Methods: The study design is a cluster randomized controlled trial of Family Health Teams participating in the Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients program. Family Health Teams will be randomly allocated 1:1 to receive either generalized messages (related to depression and smoking) exclusively via email (group A) or be assigned a knowledge broker who provides personalized support through phone- and email-based check-ins (group B). The primary outcome, measured at the site level, is the proportion of eligible baseline visits that result in the provision of the mood management intervention to eligible patients. Results: Recruitment for the primary outcome of this study will be completed in 2018/2019. Results will be reported in 2019/2020. Conclusions: This study will address the knowledge gap in the implementation strategies (ie, email-based prompts versus a knowledge broker) of mood management interventions for smokers with depression in primary care settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130998; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130998 (Archived on WebCite at www.webcitation.org/6ylyS6RTe)

Exploring the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Compare Pharmaceutical Treatments for Menorrhagia

Background: The extra-welfarist theoretical framework tends to focus on health-related quality of life, whilst the welfarist framework captures a wider notion of well-being. EQ-5D and SF-6D are commonly used to value outcomes in chronic conditions with episodic symptoms, such as heavy menstrual bleeding (clinically termed menorrhagia). Because of their narrow-health focus and the condition’s periodic nature these measures may be unsuitable. A viable alternative measure is willingness to pay (WTP) from the welfarist framework. Objective: We explore the use of WTP in a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing pharmaceutical treatments for menorrhagia. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was carried out based on an outcome of WTP. The analysis is based in the UK primary care setting over a 24-month time period, with a partial societal perspective. Ninety-nine women completed a WTP exercise from the ex-ante (pre-treatment/condition) perspective. Maximum average WTP values were elicited for two pharmaceutical treatments, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral treatment. Cost data were offset against WTP and the net present value derived for treatment. Qualitative information explaining the WTP values was also collected. Results: Oral treatment was indicated to be the most cost-beneficial intervention costing £107 less than LNG-IUS and generating £7 more benefits. The mean incremental net present value for oral treatment compared with LNG-IUS was £113. The use of the WTP approach was acceptable as very few protests and non-responses were observed. Conclusion: The preliminary cost-benefit analysis results recommend oral treatment as the first-line treatment for menorrhagia. The WTP approach is a feasible alternative to the conventional EQ-5D/SF-6D approaches and offers advantages by capturing benefits beyond health, which is particularly relevant in menorrhagia

Cost effectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy and traditional excisional surgery for the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease

Objective Our objective was to compare the cost effectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) and traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH) in the treatment of grade II–IV haemorrhoidal disease from the perspective of the UK national health service. Methods An economic evaluation was conducted alongside an open, two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial conducted in several hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomised into either SH or TH surgery between January 2011 and August 2014 and were followed up for 24 months. Intervention and subsequent resource use data were collected using case review forms and questionnaires. Benefits were collected using the EQ-5D-3L (EuroQoL—five dimensions—three levels) instrument. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost measured in pounds (£), year 2016 values, relative to the incremental benefit, which was estimated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and benefits accrued in the second year were discounted at 3.5%. The base-case analysis was based on imputed data. Uncertainty was explored using univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Participants (n = 777) were randomised to SH (n = 389) or TH (n = 388). The mean cost of SH was £337 (95% confidence interval [CI] 251–423) higher than that of TH and the mean QALYs were −0.070 (95% CI −0.127 to −0.011) lower than for TH. The base-case cost-utility analysis indicated that SH has zero probability of being cost effective at both the £20,000 and the £30,000 threshold. Results from the sensitivity analyses were similar to those from the base-case analysis. Conclusions The evidence suggests that, on average, the total mean costs over the 24-month follow-up period were significantly higher for the SH arm than for the TH arm. The QALYs were also, on average, significantly lower for the SH arm. These results were supported by the sensitivity analyses. Therefore, in terms of cost effectiveness, TH is a superior surgical treatment for the management of grade II–IV haemorrhoids when compared with SH

FIRE (facilitating implementation of research evidence) : a study protocol

Research evidence underpins best practice, but is not always used in healthcare. The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework suggests that the nature of evidence, the context in which it is used, and whether those trying to use evidence are helped (or facilitated) affect the use of evidence. Urinary incontinence has a major effect on quality of life of older people, has a high prevalence, and is a key priority within European health and social care policy. Improving continence care has the potential to improve the quality of life for older people and reduce the costs associated with providing incontinence aids

Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials

Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression

Choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial – the development of the DELTA2 guidance

Background A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target difference in the primary outcome between the randomised groups and then estimate the corresponding sample size. The sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect the target difference at the planned statistical significance level. Alternative approaches are also available, though most still require specification of a target difference. The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as incurring scientific and ethical aspects. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the development of the DELTA2 guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a RCT. Methods The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project has five components comprising systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2), a Delphi study (stage 3), a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4), and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). Results The project started in April 2016. The literature search identified 28 articles of methodological developments relevant to a method for specifying a target difference. A Delphi study involving 69 participants, along with a 2-day consensus meeting were conducted. In addition, further engagement sessions were held at two international conferences. The main guidance text was finalised on April 18, 2018, after revision informed by feedback gathered from stages 2 and 3 and from funder representatives. Discussion The DELTA2 Delphi study identified a number of areas (such as practical recommendations and examples, greater coverage of different trial designs and statistical approaches) of particular interest amongst stakeholders which new guidance was desired to meet. New relevant references were identified by the review. Such findings influenced the scope, drafting and revision of the guidance. While not all suggestions could be accommodated, it is hoped that the process has led to a more useful and practical document. Keywords Target difference Clinically important difference Sample size Guidance Randomised tria

Simvastatin for patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: long term outcomes and cost-effectiveness from a randomised controlled trial

Background: Simvastatin therapy for patients with ARDS has been shown to be safe and associated with minimal adverse effects, but it does not improve clinical outcomes. The aim of this research was to report on mortality and cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in patients with ARDS at 12 months. Methods: A cost-utility analysis alongside a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial carried out in the UK and Ireland. Five hundred and forty intubated and mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily simvastatin (at a dose of 80 mg) or identical placebo tablets enterally for up to 28 days. Results: Mortality was lower in the simvastatin group (31.8%; 95% CI 26.1, 37.5) compared to the placebo group (37.3%; 95% CI 31.6, 43.0) at 12 months although this was not significant. Simvastatin was associated with statistically significant QALY gain (incremental QALYs 0.064, 95% CI 0.002, 0.127) compared to placebo. Simvastatin was also less costly (incremental total costs –£3601, 95% CI –8061, 859). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY the probability of simvastatin being cost-effective was 99%. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in methodological assumptions with the probability of cost-effectiveness never dropping below 90%. Conclusion: Simvastatin was found to be cost-effective for the treatment of ARDS, being associated with both a significant QALY gain and a cost saving. There was no significant reduction in mortality at 12 months