Search

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited.MethodsA Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.ResultsAt the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.ConclusionDomiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.

ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness of (1) physiotherapist-led exercise versus an exercise leaflet, and (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection versus unguided injection for pain and function in subacromial pain (formerly impingement) syndrome (SAPS).MethodsThis was a single-blind 2×2 factorial randomised trial. Adults with SAPS were randomised equally to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise, (2) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet, (3) unguided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise and (4) unguided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), collected at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months and compared at 6 weeks for the injection interventions and 6 months for the exercise interventions by intention to treat.ResultsWe recruited 256 participants (64 treatment per group). Response rates for the primary outcome were 94% at 6 weeks, 88% at 6 months and 80% at 12 months. Greater improvement in total SPADI score was seen with physiotherapist-led exercise than with the exercise leaflet at 6 months (adjusted mean difference −8.23; 95% CI −14.14 to -2.32). There were no significant differences between the injection groups at 6 weeks (−2.04; −7.29 to 3.22), 6 months (−2.36; −8.16 to 3.44) or 12 months (1.59; −5.54 to 8.72).ConclusionsIn patients with SAPS, physiotherapist-led exercise leads to greater improvements in pain and function than an exercise leaflet. Ultrasound guidance confers no additional benefit over unguided corticosteroid injection.Trial registration numberISRCTN42399123.

ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease.DesignPragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.SettingThe speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020.Participants388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants’ needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index.ResultsPeople who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (−8.0 points (99% confidence interval −13.3 to −2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (−3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (−9.6 points (−14.9 to −4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded.ConclusionsLSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

Objective To identify and qualitatively synthesise the findings from all studies that have examined the performance and effect of near patient tests in the primary care setting. Design Systematic review [...]

Introduction‘One-off’ systematic case-finding for COPD using a respiratory screening questionnaire is more effective and cost-effective than routine care at identifying new cases. However, it is not known whether early diagnosis and treatment is beneficial in the longer term. We estimated the long-term cost-effectiveness of a regular case-finding programme in primary care.MethodsA Markov decision analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 3-yearly systematic case-finding programme targeted to ever smokers aged ≥50 years with the current routine diagnostic process in UK primary care. Patient-level data on case-finding pathways was obtained from a large randomised controlled trial. Information on the natural history of COPD and treatment effects was obtained from a linked COPD cohort, UK primary care database and published literature. The discounted lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated from a health service perspective.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of systematic case-finding versus current care was £16 596 per additional QALY gained, with a 78% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The base case result was robust to multiple one-way sensitivity analyses. The main drivers were response rate to the initial screening questionnaire and attendance rate for the confirmatory spirometry test.DiscussionRegular systematic case-finding for COPD using a screening questionnaire in primary care is likely to be cost-effective in the long-term despite uncertainties in treatment effectiveness. Further knowledge of the natural history of case-found patients and the effectiveness of their management will improve confidence to implement such an approach.

To investigate the cost‐effectiveness (cost‐utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (OA). A cluster‐randomized trial‐based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting for OAcompared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12‐month period from a UKNational Health Service and societal perspective. Patient‐level mean costs and mean quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves controlling for cluster‐level data were constructed. The base‐case analysis used the net benefit regressions approach. The 2‐stage nonparametric sampling technique was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The base‐case analysis demonstrated that the intervention was as costly as, and less effective than, the control (QALYdifferential −0.029 [95% confidence interval −0.062, 0.003]). In the base‐case analyses, general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression was unlikely to be a cost‐effective option (probability <5% at £20,000/QALY). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses. Prompting general practitioners to routinely screen and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with OAis unlikely to be cost‐effective. Further research is needed to explore clinically effective and cost‐effective models of managing anxiety and depression in patients presenting with clinical OA.

To our knowledge, the comparative effectiveness of commonly used conservative treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome has not been evaluated previously in primary care. We aimed to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of night splints with a corticosteroid injection with regards to reducing symptoms and improving hand function in patients with mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.

Background The PAST-BP trial found that using a lower systolic blood pressure target (<130 mmHg or lower versus <140 mmHg) in a primary care population with prevalent cerebrovascular disease was associated with a small additional reduction in blood pressure (2.9 mmHg).Objectives To determine the cost effectiveness of an intensive systolic blood pressure target (<130 mmHg or lower) compared with a standard target (<140 mmHg) in people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack on general practice stroke/transient ischaemic attack registers in England.Methods A Markov model with a one-year time cycle and a 30-year time horizon was used to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life year of an intensive target versus a standard target. Individual patient level data were used from the PAST-BP trial with regard to change in blood pressure and numbers of primary care consultations over a 12-month period. Published sources were used to estimate life expectancy and risks of cardiovascular events and their associated costs and utilities.Results In the base-case results, aiming for an intensive blood pressure target was dominant, with the incremental lifetime costs being £169 lower per patient than for the standard blood pressure target with a 0.08 quality-adjusted life year gain. This was robust to sensitivity analyses, unless intensive blood pressure lowering reduced quality of life by 2% or more.Conclusion Aiming for a systolic blood pressure target of <130 mmHg or lower is cost effective in people who have had a stroke/transient ischaemic attack in the community, but it is difficult to separate out the impact of the lower target from the impact of more active management of blood pressure.

Many individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remain undiagnosed worldwide. Health-care organisations are implementing case-finding programmes without good evidence of which are the most effective and cost-effective approaches. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative approaches to targeted case finding for COPD compared with routine practice.

Background A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease.Design and methods A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old ‘high risk’ patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management.Results Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (–£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year.Conclusion Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.

Aims: Self-monitoring and self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) is a novel intervention which improves blood pressure control. However, little evidence exists regarding the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood pressure in general and self-management in particular. This study aimed to evaluate whether self-management of hypertension was cost-effective.Design and methods: A cohort Markov model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken extrapolating to up to 35 years from cost and outcome data collected from the telemonitoring and self-management in hypertension trial (TASMINH2). Self-management of hypertension was compared with usual care in terms of lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness using a UK Health Service perspective. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness over time from self-management.Results: In the long-term, when compared with usual care, self-management was more effective by 0.24 and 0.12 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient for men and women, respectively. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for self-management was £1624 per QALY for men and £4923 per QALY for women. There was at least a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective for both sexes at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses around the assumptions made, provided that the effects of self-management lasted at least two years for men and five years for women.Conclusion: Self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensives and telemonitoring of blood pressure measurements not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of health care resources.

Thrombolysis in acute stroke is effective up to 4.5 hours after symptom onset but relies on early recognition, prompt arrival in hospital, and timely brain scanning. This study aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of increasing thrombolysis rates through a series of hypothetical change strategies designed to optimize the acute care pathway for stroke.

To establish the cost-effectiveness of a bone-anchored hearing device (BAHD). To date, there has not been any formal economic analysis of this treatment.

The diagnosis of hypertension has traditionally been based on blood-pressure measurements in the clinic, but home and ambulatory measurements better correlate with cardiovascular outcome, and ambulatory monitoring is more accurate than both clinic and home monitoring in diagnosing hypertension. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic strategies for hypertension.

Oral anticoagulants are effective at reducing stroke compared with aspirin in atrial fibrillation patients older than 75 years. Although the benefits of reduced stroke risk outweigh the risks of bleeding, the cost effectiveness of warfarin in this patient population has not yet been established.

Prescribing Analysis and Cost (PACT) data are sent to all GPs to assist them in monitoring their prescribing. Although the quarterly Standard Reports contain a great deal of information it is not known how GPs make use of it. This paper reports on two linked studies which explore GPs views on PACT Standard Reports and PACT catalogue data. In the first study, interviews were carried out with 21 GPs in 16 practices selected according to criteria related to their prescribing budget. The interview schedule included questions on how the Standard Reports were used and the amount and ease of understanding of the information provided, and on use of PACT Catalogue data. The second study was a questionnaire survey of the 1047 practices in the West Midlands region in which GPs were asked how they used PACT data. Analysis of the interviews showed that GPs views on the Standard Report varied widely although most found it helpful. Many GPs used the data in a limited way and only used a small part of them. Single-handed GPs and small practices were least likely to make use of PACT data and few practices analysed the data in any depth. Most respondents said that comparing their costs with health authority and national averages was useful for considering where to make changes in their prescribing. GPs indicated they would like the report to include some interpretation of the data with suggestions for changes which could be made. The regional survey confirmed that PACT Standard Reports are only used in a limited way and how they are used varies with practice size. We conclude that PACT Standard Reports were rarely used to analyse prescribing in any depth and GPs need more support in making better use of the data.

Objective— To investigate the factors that influence how consultants introduce new drugs into their clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE:s To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening. Design Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm. Setting 50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices. Participants 14 802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices. Interventions Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Newly identified atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, –0.5% to 0.5%). CONCLUSION: Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732.