Search

Research Question: Is withholding anticoagulation for patients with isolated or incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism clinically and cost-effective compared with full anticoagulation for 3 months?, Background: There has been an increase in the diagnosis of subsegmental pulmonary embolism since the advent of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram to investigate patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Subsegmental pulmonary embolism is not often detectable with older nuclear medicine-based diagnostic imaging for ventilation/perfusion mismatch. The case fatality of pulmonary embolism has reduced as subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnoses from computed tomography pulmonary angiogram have increased. There is growing equipoise about the optimal treatment for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism, given that full anticoagulation has significant risks of bleeding and subsegmental pulmonary embolism was not often diagnosed previously with ventilation/perfusion scanning and therefore most likely left predominantly untreated prior to the introduction of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram scanning., Objectives: Determine whether withholding anticoagulation for isolated or incidental subsegmental pulmonary embolism (i.e. subsegmental pulmonary embolism with no coexisting deep-vein thrombosis) reduces the harms of recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding compared with 3 months of full anticoagulation at 3, 6 and 12 months. Determine the rate of complications of anticoagulation therapy (predominantly bleeding) in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Determine whether not treating isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism is acceptable to clinicians and patients. Determine the reclassification rate of subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnoses made by general reporting radiologists when reviewed by specialist respiratory radiologists and develop a set of rules to improve general radiologists' diagnoses of subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Assess cost-effectiveness of not treating patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism with anticoagulation, taking a health service perspective., Methods: Prospective individually randomised open controlled trial with blinded end-point committee assessment for outcomes, powered for non-inferiority for recurrent venous thromboembolism and for superiority for bleeding events. An internal pilot phase is included for feasibility and acceptability of no anticoagulation. We planned to recruit 1466 patients from at least 50 acute hospital sites. Allowing for a dropout rate of 15%, this would have given us 90% power to detect a reduction in major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding from 7.3% in the anticoagulation arm to 3% in the intervention arm. We were powered to determine that a strategy of no anticoagulation was non-inferior to anticoagulation with an upper margin of a 2.3% increase in recurrent venous thromboembolism from an expected rate of 2% in those who receive full anticoagulation. We also planned to undertake a study comparing acute reporting radiologists' diagnoses of subsegmental pulmonary embolism from all computed tomography pulmonary angiograms with specialist respiratory radiologists. This would have allowed us to determine safety in the pilot study (i.e. patients with pulmonary embolism that was in fact larger than subsegmental would have been identified) and develop guidance for subsegmental pulmonary embolism diagnosis for general radiologists. Patients with lived experience of thrombosis contributed to all aspects of the trial design and were part of the Trial Management Group., Progress of Study: The STOPAPE trial was stopped prematurely due to a low recruitment rate in the wake of the COVID pandemic and prioritisation of recovery of the National Institute for Health and Care Research research portfolio. There are no outcome data available for this trial. Separate NIHR Library publications will detail the linked qualitative study examining the views of patients and clinicians around withholding anticoagulation for isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism as well as presenting all collected data of recruited patients., Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128073. A plain language summary of this research article is available on the NIHR Journals Library Website https://doi.org/10.3310/HRCW7937.

Background: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics., Objectives: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care., Design: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial., Setting: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK., Participants: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery., Interventions: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist., Results: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p  = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy., Conclusions: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration., Limitations: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results., Future Work: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581., 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. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Sue Jowett is (from 2016 to present) a member of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Clinical Trials Committee and reports personal fees as an independent advisor at the Pfizer (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) chronic pain advisory board meeting in November 2018, outside the submitted work. Kate M Dunn reports grants from the Wellcome Trust (London, UK), during the conduct of the study.

Background: Many pregnant women experience low back pain. Acupuncture appears to be a safe, promising intervention but evidence is needed about its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a future large randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the additional benefit of adding acupuncture to standard care (SC) for pregnancy-related back pain., Design: Phase 1: a questionnaire survey described current care for pregnancy-related back pain. Focus groups and interviews with midwives, physiotherapists and pregnant women explored acceptability and feasibility of acupuncture and the proposed RCT. Phase 2: a single-centre pilot RCT. Participants were identified using six methods and randomised to SC, SC plus true acupuncture or SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture., Participants: Phase 1: 1093 physiotherapists were surveyed and 15 midwives, 21 physiotherapists and 17 pregnant women participated in five focus groups and 20 individual interviews. Phase 2: 125 women with pregnancy-related back pain participated., Interventions: SC: a self-management booklet and onward referral for one-to-one physiotherapy (two to four sessions) for those who needed it. SC plus true acupuncture: the self-management booklet and six to eight treatments with a physiotherapist comprising true (penetrating) acupuncture, advice and exercise. SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture: the self-management booklet and six to eight treatments with a physiotherapist comprising non-penetrating acupuncture, advice and exercise., Main Outcome Measures: Pilot RCT outcomes included recruitment rates, treatment fidelity, follow-up rate, patient-reported pain and function, quality of life and health-care resource use. Birth and neonatal outcomes were also assessed. Staff overseeing outcome data collection were blind to treatment allocation., Results: Phase 1: 629 (57.5%) physiotherapists responded to the survey, 499 were experienced in treating pregnancy-related back pain and reported 16 advice and 18 treatment options. Typical treatment comprised two to four individual sessions of advice and exercise over 6 weeks. Acupuncture was reported by 24%. Interviews highlighted the impact of back pain and paucity of effective interventions. Women and midwives strongly supported a RCT and expressed few concerns. Physiotherapists' concerns about acupuncture in pregnancy informed a training programme prior to the pilot RCT. Phase 2: We recruited 125 of 280 potentially eligible women (45%) in 6 months and randomised 41 to SC and 42 each to the SC plus true acupuncture and SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture arms. Analysis was conducted with 124 participants (41, 42 and 41, respectively) as one participant was randomised in error. Three of six recruitment methods were the most successful. In total, 10% of women (n = 4) randomised to SC alone accessed one-to-one physiotherapy and received an average of two treatments. The average number of treatments was six for both SC plus true acupuncture and SC plus non-penetrating acupuncture. Treatments were in line with protocols. Eight-week follow-up was 74%. Patient-reported outcomes (pain, function and quality of life) favoured the addition of acupuncture. There was no evidence of serious adverse events on mothers or birth and neonatal outcomes. The Pelvic Girdle Questionnaire was found to be an appropriate outcome measure for a future trial., Conclusions: A future main RCT is feasible and would be welcomed by women and clinicians. Longer-term follow-up and further follow-up efforts are recommended for a main trial., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49955124., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Unprovoked first venous thromboembolism (VTE) is defined as VTE in the absence of a temporary provoking factor such as surgery, immobility and other temporary factors. Recurrent VTE in unprovoked patients is highly prevalent, but easily preventable with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. The unprovoked population is highly heterogeneous in terms of risk of recurrent VTE., Objectives: The first aim of the project is to review existing prognostic models which stratify individuals by their recurrence risk, therefore potentially allowing tailored treatment strategies. The second aim is to enhance the existing research in this field, by developing and externally validating a new prognostic model for individual risk prediction, using a pooled database containing individual patient data (IPD) from several studies. The final aim is to assess the economic cost-effectiveness of the proposed prognostic model if it is used as a decision rule for resuming OAC therapy, compared with current standard treatment strategies., Methods: Standard systematic review methodology was used to identify relevant prognostic model development, validation and cost-effectiveness studies. Bibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched using terms relating to the clinical area and prognosis. Reviewing was undertaken by two reviewers independently using pre-defined criteria. Included full-text articles were data extracted and quality assessed. Critical appraisal of included full texts was undertaken and comparisons made of model performance. A prognostic model was developed using IPD from the pooled database of seven trials. A novel internal-external cross-validation (IECV) approach was used to develop and validate a prognostic model, with external validation undertaken in each of the trials iteratively. Given good performance in the IECV approach, a final model was developed using all trials data. A Markov patient-level simulation was used to consider the economic cost-effectiveness of using a decision rule (based on the prognostic model) to decide on resumption of OAC therapy (or not)., Results: Three full-text articles were identified by the systematic review. Critical appraisal identified methodological and applicability issues; in particular, all three existing models did not have external validation. To address this, new prognostic models were sought with external validation. Two potential models were considered: one for use at cessation of therapy (pre D-dimer), and one for use after cessation of therapy (post D-dimer). Model performance measured in the external validation trials showed strong calibration performance for both models. The post D-dimer model performed substantially better in terms of discrimination (c = 0.69), better separating high- and low-risk patients. The economic evaluation identified that a decision rule based on the final post D-dimer model may be cost-effective for patients with predicted risk of recurrence of over 8% annually; this suggests continued therapy for patients with predicted risks ≥ 8% and cessation of therapy otherwise., Conclusions: The post D-dimer model performed strongly and could be useful to predict individuals' risk of recurrence at any time up to 2-3 years, thereby aiding patient counselling and treatment decisions. A decision rule using this model may be cost-effective for informing clinical judgement and patient opinion in treatment decisions. Further research may investigate new predictors to enhance model performance and aim to further externally validate to confirm performance in new, non-trial populations. Finally, it is essential that further research is conducted to develop a model predicting bleeding risk on therapy, to manage the balance between the risks of recurrence and bleeding., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003494., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the U.K., domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure., Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation., Data Sources: Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014., Methods: Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately., Results: Thirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective., Limitations: Evidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings., Future Work Recommendations: The results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited., Objectives: To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined., Design: A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study., Setting: Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals., Participants: Women with AUB - defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding - and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps., Interventions: We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman's assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results: At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively., Conclusions: When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.