Valuing Health Gain from Composite Response Endpoints for Multisystem Diseases

Objectives: This study aimed to demonstrate how to estimate the value of health gain after patients with a multisystem disease achieve a condition-specific composite response endpoint. Methods: Data from patients treated in routine practice with an exemplar multisystem disease (systemic lupus erythematosus) were extracted from a national register (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Biologics Register). Two bespoke composite response endpoints (Major Clinical Response and Improvement) were developed in advance of this study. Difference-in-differences regression compared health utility values (3-level version of EQ-5D; UK tariff) over 6 months for responders and nonresponders. Bootstrapped regression estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria, and population monetary benefit of response. Results: Within the sample (n = 171), 18.2% achieved Major Clinical Response and 49.1% achieved Improvement at 6 months. Incremental health utility values were 0.0923 for Major Clinical Response and 0.0454 for Improvement. Expected incremental QALY gain at 6 months was 0.020 for Major Clinical Response and 0.012 for Improvement. Probability of QALY gain after achieving the response criteria was 77.6% for Major Clinical Response and 72.7% for Improvement. Population monetary benefit of response was £1 106 458 for Major Clinical Response and £649 134 for Improvement. Conclusions: Bespoke composite response endpoints are becoming more common to measure treatment response for multisystem diseases in trials and observational studies. Health technology assessment agencies face a growing challenge to establish whether these endpoints correspond with improved health gain. Health utility values can generate this evidence to enhance the usefulness of composite response endpoints for health technology assessment, decision making, and economic evaluation

PREVENTion of a parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh in patients undergoing permanent end-colostomy; the PREVENT-trial: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Parastomal hernia is a common complication of a colostomy. Ultimately, one-third of patients with a parastomal hernia will need surgical correction due to frequent leakage or life-threatening bowel obstruction or strangulation. However, treatment remains a challenge resulting in high recurrence rates. Two single center trials demonstrated that the frequency of parastomal hernias decreases by prophylactic placement of a mesh around the stoma at the time of formation. Unfortunately, both studies were small-sized, single-center studies and with these small numbers less common complications could be missed which were the reasons to initiate a prospective randomized multicenter trial to determine if a retromuscular, preperitoneal mesh at the stoma site prevents parastomal hernia and does not cause unacceptable complications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>One hundred and fifty patients undergoing open procedure, elective formation of a permanent end-colostomy will be randomized into two groups. In the intervention group an end-colostomy is created with placement of a preperitioneal, retromuscular lightweight monofilament polypropylene mesh, and compared to a group with a traditional stoma without mesh. Patients will be recruited from 14 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands during a 2-year period. Primary endpoint is the incidence of parastomal hernia. Secondary endpoints are stoma complications, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life. Follow-up will be performed at 3 weeks, 3 months and at 1, 2, and 5 years. To find a difference of 20% with a power of 90%, a total number of 134 patients must be included. All results will be reported according to the CONSORT 2010 statement.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The PREVENT-trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial powered to determine whether prophylactic placement of a polypropylene mesh decreases the incidence of a parastomal hernia versus the traditional stoma formation without a mesh.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The PREVENT-trial is registered at: <url>http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018</url></p

Parastomal hernia and prophylactic mesh use during primary stoma formation: a commentary.

Accepted manuscript (12 month embargo

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias.

International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project