Search

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are an important source of evidence in the assessment of health interventions. In these studies, cost and effectiveness outcomes are commonly measured at multiple time points, but some observations may be missing. Restricting the analysis to the participants with complete data can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. Methods, such as multiple imputation, have been recommended as they make better use of the data available and are valid under less restrictive Missing At Random (MAR) assumption. Linear mixed effects models (LMMs) offer a simple alternative to handle missing data under MAR without requiring imputations, and have not been very well explored in the CEA context. In this manuscript, we aim to familiarize readers with LMMs and demonstrate their implementation in CEA. We illustrate the approach on a randomized trial of antidepressants, and provide the implementation code in R and Stata. We hope that the more familiar statistical framework associated with LMMs, compared to other missing data approaches, will encourage their implementation and move practitioners away from inadequate methods., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Missing data are a common issue in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) alongside randomised trials and are often addressed assuming the data are 'missing at random'. However, this assumption is often questionable, and sensitivity analyses are required to assess the implications of departures from missing at random. Reference-based multiple imputation provides an attractive approach for conducting such sensitivity analyses, because missing data assumptions are framed in an intuitive way by making reference to other trial arms. For example, a plausible not at random mechanism in a placebo-controlled trial would be to assume that participants in the experimental arm who dropped out stop taking their treatment and have similar outcomes to those in the placebo arm. Drawing on the increasing use of this approach in other areas, this paper aims to extend and illustrate the reference-based multiple imputation approach in CEA. It introduces the principles of reference-based imputation and proposes an extension to the CEA context. The method is illustrated in the CEA of the CoBalT trial evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy for treatment-resistant depression. Stata code is provided. We find that reference-based multiple imputation provides a relevant and accessible framework for assessing the robustness of CEA conclusions to different missing data assumptions., (© 2019 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older)., Data Collection and Analysis: We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported., Secondary Outcomes: use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE., Authors' Conclusions: We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: Despite growing research interest in spirituality and health, and recommendations on the importance of spiritual care in advanced cancer and palliative care, relationships between spiritual belief and psychological health near death remain unclear. We investigated (i) relationships between strength of spiritual beliefs and anxiety and depression, intake of psychotropic/analgesic medications and survival in patients with advanced disease; and (ii) whether the strength of spiritual belief changes as death approaches., Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 170 patients receiving palliative care at home, 97% of whom had a diagnosis of advanced cancer. Data on strength of spiritual beliefs (Beliefs and Values Scale [BVS]), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), psychotropic/analgesic medications, daily functioning, global health and social support were collected at recruitment then 3 and 10 weeks later. Mortality data were collected up to 34 months after the first patient was recruited., Results: Regression analysis showed a slight increase in strength of spiritual belief over time approaching statistical significance (+0.16 BVS points per week, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.33], p = 0.073). Belief was unrelated to anxiety and depression (-0.15 points decrease in HADS for 10 points increased in BVS (95% CI [-0.57, 0.27], p = 0.49) or consumption of psychotropic medication). There was a non-significant trend for decreasing analgesic prescription with increasing belief. Mortality was higher over 6 months in participants with lower belief at recruitment., Conclusion: Results suggest that although religious and spiritual beliefs might increase marginally as death approaches, they do not affect levels of anxiety or depression in patients with advanced cancer., (© 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Delirium is a syndrome characterised by a disturbance of consciousness (often fluctuating), cognition and perception. In terminally ill patients it is one of the most common causes of admission to clinical care. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should be directed at addressing these causes rather than the symptom cluster. In cases where this is not possible, or treatment does not prove successful, the use of drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is an update of the review published on 'Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adult patients' in The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 2 ( Jackson 2004)., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of drug therapies to treat delirium in adult patients in the terminal phase of a disease., Search Methods: We searched the following sources: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 2012) and PSYCINFO (1990 to 2012)., Selection Criteria: Prospective trials with or without randomisation or blinding involving the use of drug therapies for the treatment of delirium in adult patients in the terminal phase of a disease., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality using standardised methods and extracted trial data. We collected outcomes related to efficacy and adverse effects., Main Results: One trial met the criteria for inclusion. In the 2012 update search we retrieved 3066 citations but identified no new trials. The included trial evaluated 30 hospitalised AIDS patients receiving one of three agents: chlorpromazine, haloperidol and lorazepam. The trial under-reported key methodological features. It found overall that patients in the chlorpromazine group and those in the haloperidol group had fewer symptoms of delirium at follow-up (to below the diagnostic threshold using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) and that both were equally effective (at two days mean difference (MD) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.58 to 5.32; between two and six days MD -0.21; 95% CI -5.35 to 4.93). Chlorpromazine and haloperidol were found to be no different in improving cognitive status in the short term (at 48 hours) but at subsequent follow-up cognitive status was reduced in those taking chlorpromazine. Improvements from baseline to day two for patients randomised to lorazepam were not apparent. All patients on lorazepam (n = 6) developed adverse effects, including oversedation and increased confusion, leading to trial drug discontinuation., Authors' Conclusions: There remains insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the role of drug therapy in the treatment of delirium in terminally ill patients. Thus, practitioners should continue to follow current clinical guidelines. Further research is essential.

Background: Patients in the terminal phase of a disease may have complex needs. It is often family and friends who play a central role in providing support, despite health professional input and regardless of whether the patient is at home or elsewhere. Such informal caring may involve considerable physical, psychological, and economic stresses. A range of supportive programmes for caregivers is being developed including psychological support and practical assistance., Objectives: To assess the effects of supportive interventions that aim to improve the psychological and physical health of informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of their illness., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 2010); MEDLINE (1950 to May 2010); EMBASE (1980 to May 2010); PsycINFO (1872 to May 2010); CINAHL (1937 to May 2010); National Health Service Research Register (2000 to November 2008) and Dissertation Abstracts (1716 to May 2010). We searched the reference lists of relevant studies; contacted experts; and handsearched journals., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to support adults who were caring for a friend or relative with a disease in the terminal phase. Interventions could include practical and emotional support and/or the facilitation of coping skills. Interventions could support caregivers indirectly via patient care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently screened citations against the selection criteria. Data were extracted by one author and checked by another. This included extraction of any adverse effects. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken by two authors. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information. Trial data were combined, where appropriate, on the review's primary outcomes., Main Results: We included eleven RCTs involving 1836 caregiver participants. Nine interventions were delivered directly to the caregiver. Seven of these provided support in the caring role, another involved a family life review, and one grief therapy. None provided practical support. The other two interventions aimed to support caregivers indirectly via patient care. Overall the risk of bias is unclear, as all trials under-reported methods.There is low quality evidence that interventions directly supporting the caregiver significantly reduce psychological distress in the short term (8 trials: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.02). There is also low quality evidence that these interventions in the short term may marginally improve coping skills and quality of life, but neither results were statistically significant (7 trials: SMD -0.05; 95% CI -0.24 to 0.14; 6 trials: SMD 0.08; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.26, respectively). One study assessed physical outcomes, specifically sleep improvement, and found no difference (median effect 0.00). No study measured health service use or adverse outcomes. In one study, however, a subgroup of intervention participants had higher levels of family conflict.Evidence was less clear on the indirect interventions. While both trials in this category found that supporting the patient may reduce psychological distress, none of the four assessments were statistically significant. There were no evaluations of coping with the caring role, quality of life, service use or adverse outcomes. In one trial there was no difference between trial arms in the proportion of caregivers reporting good physical health., Authors' Conclusions: There is evidence that supportive interventions may help reduce caregivers' psychological distress. These findings suggest that practitioners should enquire about the concerns of caregivers and should consider that they may benefit from additional support. There is, however, a need for further research to explore the benefits identified, and to assess the interventions' effects on physical health, and potential harms. Trials need to report their methods fully.