Economic modelling of healthcare services for prostate cancer

This report documents the development and construction of a generic economic model for the healthcare services involved in prostate cancer treatment. It also presents findings of descriptive analyses on the disease burden and three cost-effectiveness analyses. Specifically, the objectives of this project were to: 1. Build a generic economic model structure; 2. Populate the model with data estimates; 3. Validate the generic model internally and externally; 4. Undertake descriptive analyses of costs and patient outcomes; and ​​​​​​​5. Undertake three cost-effectiveness analyses comparing strategies of interest with the status quo and integrating the generic model structure

Efficient Value of Information Calculation Using a Nonparametric Regression Approach: An Applied Perspective

Background: Value-of-information (VOI) analysis provides an analytical framework to assess whether obtaining additional evidence is worthwhile to reduce decision uncertainty. The reporting of VOI measures, particularly the expected value of perfect parameter information (EVPPI) and the expected value of sample information (EVSI), is limited because of the computational burden associated with typical two-level Monte-Carlo–based solution. Recently, a nonparametric regression approach was proposed that allows the estimation of multiparameter EVPPI and EVSI directly from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample. Objectives: To demonstrate the value of the nonparametric regression approach in calculating VOI measures in real-world cases and to compare its performance with the standard approach of the Monte-Carlo simulation. Methods: We used the regression approach to calculate EVPPI and EVSI in two models, and compared the results with the estimates obtained via the standard Monte-Carlo simulation. Results: The VOI values from the two approaches were very close; computation using the regression method, however, was faster. Conclusion: The nonparametric regression approach provides an efficient and easy-to-implement alternative for EVPPI and EVSI calculation in economic models

Prostate cancer survivorship essentials for men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a tele-based nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials hormone therapy study)

Introduction Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Men receiving ADT experience numerous side effects and frequently report unmet supportive care needs. An essential part of quality cancer care is survivorship care. To date, an optimal effective approach to survivorship care for men with prostate cancer on ADT has not been described. This protocol describes a randomised trial of tele-based nurse-led survivorship that addresses this knowledge gap: (1) determine the effectiveness of a nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials), relative to usual care, for improving health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT and (2) evaluate PCEssentials implementation strategies and outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, compared with usual care. Methods and analysis This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 1) trial with participants randomised to one of two arms: (1) minimally enhanced usual care and (2) nurse-led prostate cancer survivorship essentials (PCEssentials) delivered over four tele-based sessions, with a booster session 5 months after session 1. Eligible participants are Australian men with prostate cancer commencing ADT and expected to be on ADT for a minimum of 12 months. Participants are followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Primary outcomes are HR-QoL and self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes are psychological distress, insomnia, fatigue and physical activity. A concurrent process evaluation with participants and study stakeholders will be undertaken to determine effectiveness of delivery of PCEssentials. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the Metro South Health HREC (HREC/2021/QMS/79429). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. Outcomes of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will be presented at conferences and meetings, local hospital departments, participating organisations/clinical services, and university seminars, and communicated at community and consumer-led forums. Trial registration number ACTRN12622000025730

Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial

Background: Two billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are used globally each year, but optimal dressing and securement methods are not well established. We aimed to compare the efficacy and costs of three alternative approaches to standard non-bordered polyurethane dressings. Methods: We did a pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority trial at two hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and required PIVC insertion for clinical treatment, which was expected to be required for longer than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via a centralised web-based randomisation service using random block sizes, stratified by hospital, to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane dressing, bordered polyurethane dressing, a securement device with polyurethane dressing, or polyurethane dressing (control). Randomisation was concealed before allocation. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were not masked because of the nature of the intervention, but infections were adjudicated by a physician who was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of complete dislodgement, occlusion, phlebitis, and infection [primary bloodstream infection or local infection]). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000769987. Findings: Between March 18, 2013, and Sept 9, 2014, we randomly assigned 1807 patients to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane (n=446), bordered polyurethane (n=454), securement device with polyurethane (n=453), or polyurethane (n=454); 1697 patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. 163 (38%) of 427 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group (absolute risk difference −4·5% [95% CI −11·1 to 2·1%], p=0·19), 169 (40%) of 423 of patients in the bordered polyurethane group (–2·7% [–9·3 to 3·9%] p=0·44), 176 (41%) of 425 patients in the securement device with poplyurethane group (–1·2% [–7·9% to 5·4%], p=0·73), and 180 (43%) of 422 patients in the polyurethane group had PIVC failure. 17 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group, two patients in the bordered polyurethane group, eight patients in the securement device with polyurethane group, and seven patients in the polyurethane group had skin adverse events. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between groups. Interpretation: Current dressing and securement methods are commonly associated with PIVC failure and poor durability, with simultaneous use of multiple products commonly required. Cost is currently the main factor that determines product choice. Innovations to achieve effective, durable dressings and securements, and randomised controlled trials assessing their effectiveness are urgently needed