Economic evaluation plan of a randomised controlled trial of intra-nodular injection of anti-TNF and placebo among patients with early Dupuytren’s disease: Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren’s Disease (RIDD) [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Dupuytren’s disease (DD) is a common fibroproliferative condition of the palmar and digital fascia of the hand; however, there is currently no approved treatment for early stage DD. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab injections compared to placebo for controlling the progression of early stage DD in the Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren’s Disease (RIDD) trial. Measure of effectiveness and resource use will be obtained from a randomised clinical trial, carried out in three healthcare centres, and recruiting a minimum of 138 patients aged 18 years and above with a diagnosis of early stage DD. Resource use and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at 3, 6, 9, 12 (primary outcome endpoint) and 18 months post-randomisation. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at 12 months and if the intervention is effective, a decision analytic model will be applied to estimate the lifetime effectiveness and costs. The analysis will be performed from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RIDD is the first randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation conducted among patients with early stage DD. The protocol described here records our intent to conduct both a within-trial CUA alongside the RIDD study and a lifetime CUA using decision-analytic modelling

Current and future economic burden of diabetes among working-age adults in Asia: conservative estimates for Singapore from 2010-2050

Abstract Background Diabetes not only imposes a huge health burden but also a large economic burden worldwide. In the working-age population, cost of lost productivity can far exceed diabetes-related medical cost. In this study, we aimed to estimate the current and future indirect and excess direct costs of diagnosed type 2 diabetes among the working-age population in Singapore. Methods A previously-published epidemiological model of diabetes was adapted to forecast prevalence among working-age patients with diagnosed type 2 diabetes in the absence of interventions. The current methodology of the American Diabetes Association was adopted to estimate the costs of diabetes for this population. Diabetes-related excess direct medical costs were obtained from a local cost study while indirect costs were calculated using the human capital approach applied to local labor force statistics. These cost were estimated conservatively from a societal perspective on a per patient basis and projected to the overall Singapore population from 2010 to 2050. Results In 2010, total economic costs per working-age patient were estimated to be US$5,646 (US$4,432-US$10,612), of which 42$7,791 (US$5,741-US$12,756) in 2050, with the share of indirect costs rising to 65 %. Simultaneous increases in prevalence imply that the total economic costs of diabetes for the entire working-age population will increase by 2.4 fold from US$787 million in 2010 to US$1,867 million in 2050. Conclusions By current projections, diabetes in Singapore represents a growing economic burden. Among the working-age population, the impact of productivity loss will become increasingly significant. Prevention efforts to reduce overall prevalence should also engage stakeholders outside the health sector who ultimately bear the indirect burden of disease

Moulded cast compared with K-wire fixation after manipulation of an acute dorsally displaced distal radius fracture : the DRAFFT 2 RCT

Background: Patients with a displaced fracture of the distal radius are frequently offered surgical fixation. Manipulation of the fracture and moulded plaster casting is an alternative treatment that avoids metal implants, but evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. Objective: To compare functional outcomes, quality-of-life outcomes, complications and resource use among patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius treated with manipulation and surgical fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires) and those treated with manipulation and moulded cast. Design: Pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a health economic evaluation. Setting: A total of 36 orthopaedic trauma centres in the UK NHS. Participants: Patients (aged ≥ 16 years) treated for an acute dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius were potentially eligible. Patients were excluded if their injury had occurred > 2 weeks previously, if the fracture was open, if it extended > 3 cm from the radiocarpal joint or if it required open reduction, or if the participant was unable to complete questionnaires. DOI: 10.3310/RLCF6332 Health Technology Assessment 2022 Vol. 26 No. 11 Copyright © 2022 Costa et al. This work was produced by Costa et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaption in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited. vii Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in theatre (1 : 1) to receive a moulded cast (i.e. the cast group) or surgical fixation with K-wires (i.e. the K-wire group) after fracture manipulation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Health-related quality of life was recorded using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. Results: Between January 2017 and March 2019, 500 participants (mean age 60 years, 83% women) were randomly allocated to receive a moulded cast (n = 255) or surgical fixation with K-wire (n = 245) following a manipulation of their fracture. A total of 395 (80%) participants were included in the primary analysis at 12 months. There was no difference in the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 1 year post randomisation [cast group: n = 200, mean score 21.2 (standard deviation 23.1); K-wire group: n = 195, mean score 20.7 (standard deviation 22.3); adjusted mean difference –0.34 (95% confidence interval –4.33 to 3.66); p = 0.87]. A total of 33 (13%) participants in the cast group required surgical fixation for loss of fracture position in the first 6 weeks, compared with one participant in the K-wire group (odds ratio 0.02, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.10). The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that manipulation and surgical fixation with K-wires had a higher mean cost than manipulation and a moulded cast, despite similar mean effectiveness. The use of K-wires is unlikely to be cost-effective, and sensitivity analyses found this result to be robust. Limitations: Because the interventions were identifiable, neither patients nor clinicians could be blind to their treatment. Conclusions: Surgical fixation with K-wires was not found to be superior to moulded casting following manipulation of a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius, as measured by Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score. However, one in eight participants treated in a moulded cast required surgery for loss of fracture reduction in the first 6 weeks. After a successful closed reduction, clinicians may consider a moulded cast as a safe and cost-effective alternative to surgical fixation with K-wires. Future work: Further research should focus on optimal techniques for immobilisation and manipulation of this type of fracture, including optimal analgesia, and for rehabilitation of the patient after immobilisation. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11980540 and UKCRN Portfolio 208830. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

Introduction: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. // Methods and analysis: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. // Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. // Trial registration number: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31

Molnupiravir Plus Usual Care Versus Usual Care Alone as Early Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 at Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes (PANORAMIC): Preliminary Analysis from the United Kingdom Randomised, Controlled Open-Label, Platform Adaptive Trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P<0·001)]. 59 (0·4%) participants experienced serious adverse events in the molnupiravir group and 52 (0·4%) in usual care. Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Effectiveness of nail bed repair in children with or without replacing the fingernail : NINJA multicentre randomized clinical trial

Background Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. Methods A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. Results Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). Conclusion After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial

Background: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Methods: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0–10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]&gt;0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference –2·1% [–2·9% to –1·5%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: –2·5% [–3·3% to –1·6%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)&gt;0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)&gt;0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)&gt;0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·4% [–2·3% to –0·4%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: –0·5% [–1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. Interpretation: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat