Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat:the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain.OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways.DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation.SETTING: The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain.PARTICIPANTS: A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms.RESULTS: There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12-52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11-46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14-65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it.LIMITATIONS: The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial.CONCLUSIONS: The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective.TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102.FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. </p

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BackgroundOral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care.DesignPlacebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded.SettingNine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales.ParticipantsA total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy.InterventionRandom allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner.Main outcome measureThe mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome.ResultsA total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm.LimitationsThe trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth.ConclusionsThis trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services.Future workFurther well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information