Search

Background: Speech impairments are common with Parkinson's disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal., Objective(s): The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson's disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other., Design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted., Setting: United Kingdom outpatient and home settings., Participants: People with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy., Interventions: The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire - Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation., Results: Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD ( n  = 130), National Health Service speech and language therapy ( n  = 129) and control ( n  = 129). The impact of voice problems at 3 months after randomisation was lower for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD participants than control [-8.0 (99% confidence interval: -13.3, -2.6); p  = 0.001]. There was no evidence of improvement for those with access to National Health Service speech and language therapy when compared to control [1.7 (99% confidence interval: -3.8, 7.1); p  = 0.4]. Participants randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD reported a lower impact of their voice problems than participants randomised to National Health Service speech and language therapy [99% confidence interval: -9.6 (-14.9, -4.4); p  < 0.0001]. There were no reports of serious adverse events. Staff were confident with the trial interventions; a range of patient and therapist enablers of implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD were identified. The economic evaluation results suggested Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was more expensive and more effective than control or National Health Service speech and language therapy but was not cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £197,772 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and £77,017 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively., Limitations: The number of participants recruited to the trial did not meet the pre-specified power., Conclusions: People that had access to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD described a significantly greater reduction in the impact of their Parkinson's disease-related speech problems 3 months after randomisation compared to people that had no speech and language therapy. There was no evidence of a difference between National Health Service speech and language therapy and those that received no speech and language therapy. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD resulted in a significantly lower impact of voice problems compared to National Health Service speech and language therapy 3 months after randomisation which was still present after 12 months; however, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was not found to be cost-effective., Future Work: Implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in the National Health Service and identifying alternatives to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD for those who cannot tolerate it. Investigation of less costly alternative options for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment delivery require investigation, with economic evaluation using a preference-based outcome measure that captures improvement in communication., Study Registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN12421382., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 58. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Introduction: Survival after stroke is improving, leading to increased demand on primary care and community services to meet the long-term care needs of people living with stroke. No formal primary care-based holistic model of care with clinical trial evidence exists to support stroke survivors living in the community, and stroke survivors report that many of their needs are not being met. We have developed a multifactorial primary care model to address these longer term needs. We aim to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this new model of primary care for stroke survivors compared with standard care., Methods and Analysis: Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with general practice as the unit of randomisation. People on the stroke registers of general practices will be invited to participate. One arm will receive the IPCAS model of care including a structured review using a checklist; a self-management programme; enhanced communication pathways between primary care and specialist services; and direct point of contact for patients. The other arm will receive usual care. We aim to recruit 920 people with stroke registered with 46 general practices. The primary endpoint is two subscales (emotion and handicap) of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) as coprimary outcomes at 12 months (adjusted for baseline). Secondary outcomes include: SIS Short Form, EuroQol EQ-5D-5L, ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults, Southampton Stroke Self-management Questionnaire, Health Literacy Questionnaire and medication use. Cost-effectiveness of the new model will be determined in a within-trial economic evaluation., Ethics and Dissemination: Favourable ethical opinion was gained from Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds NHS Research Ethics Committee. Approval to start was given by the Health Research Authority prior to recruitment of participants at any NHS site. Data will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Patient and public involvement helped develop the dissemination plan., Trial Registration Number: NCT03353519., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Management of hypertension can lead to significant reductions in blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. Modeling the course of cardiovascular disease is not without complications, and uncertainty surrounding the structure of a model will almost always arise once a choice of a model structure is defined., Objectives: To provide a practical illustration of the impact on the results of cost-effectiveness of changing or adapting model structures in a previously published cost-utility analysis of a primary care intervention for the management of hypertension Targets and Self-Management for the Control of Blood Pressure in Stroke and at Risk Groups (TASMIN-SR)., Methods: The case study assessed the structural uncertainty arising from model structure and from the exclusion of secondary events. Four alternative model structures were implemented. Long-term cost-effectiveness was estimated and the results compared with those from the TASMIN-SR model., Results: The main cost-effectiveness results obtained in the TASMIN-SR study did not change with the implementation of alternative model structures. Choice of model type was limited to a cohort Markov model, and because of the lack of epidemiological data, only model 4 captured structural uncertainty arising from the exclusion of secondary events in the case study model., Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the main conclusions drawn from the TASMIN-SR model of cost-effectiveness were robust to changes in model structure and the inclusion of secondary events. Even though one of the models produced results that were different to those of TASMIN-SR, the fact that the main conclusions were identical suggests that a more parsimonious model may have sufficed., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the cost-utility of two exercise interventions relative to a control group for vasomotor menopausal symptoms., Design: Economic evaluation taking a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and a societal perspective., Setting: Primary care., Population: Peri- and postmenopausal women who have not used hormone therapy in the past 3 months and experience ≥ 5 episodes of vasomotor symptoms daily., Methods: An individual and a social support-based exercise intervention were evaluated. The former (Exercise-DVD), aimed to prompt exercise with purpose-designed DVD and written materials, whereas the latter (Exercise-Social support) with community exercise social support groups. Costs and outcomes associated with these interventions were compared to those of a control group, who could only have an exercise consultation. An incremental cost-utility analysis was undertaken using bootstrapping to account for the uncertainty around cost-effectiveness point-estimates., Main Outcome Measure: Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)., Results: Data for 261 women were available for analysis. Exercise-DVD was the most expensive and least effective intervention. Exercise-Social support was £52 (CIs: £18 to £86) and £18 (CIs: -£68 to £105) more expensive per woman than the control group at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation and led to 0.006 (CIs: -0.002 to 0.014) and 0.013 (CIs: -0.01 to 0.036) more QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8,940 and £1,413 per QALY gained respectively. Exercise-Social support had 80%-90% probability of being cost-effective in the UK context. A societal perspective of analysis and a complete-case analysis led to similar findings., Conclusions: Exercise-Social support resulted in a small gain in health-related quality of life at a marginal additional cost in a context where broader wellbeing and long-term gains associated with exercise and social participation were not captured. Community exercise social support groups are very likely to be cost-effective in the management of vasomotor menopausal symptoms.

Background: Clinical trials suggest that use of fixed-dose combination therapy ('polypills') can improve adherence to medication and control of risk factors of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to usual care, but cost-effectiveness is unknown., Objective: To determine whether a polypill is cost-effective compared to usual care and optimal guideline-recommended treatment for primary prevention in people already on statins and/or blood pressure lowering therapy., Methods: A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a one year time cycle and a 10 year time horizon to compare the polypill with usual care and optimal implementation of NICE Guidelines, using patient level data from a retrospective cross-sectional study. The model was run for ten age (40 years+) and gender-specific sub-groups on treatment for raised CVD risk with no history of CVD. Published sources were used to estimate impact of different treatment strategies on risk of CVD events., Results: A polypill strategy was potentially cost-effective compared to other strategies for most sub-groups ranging from dominance to up to £18,811 per QALY depending on patient sub-group. Optimal implementation of guidelines was most cost-effective for women aged 40-49 and men aged 75+. Results were sensitive to polypill cost, and if the annual cost was less than £150, this approach was cost-effective compared to the other strategies., Conclusions: For most people already on treatment to modify CVD risk, a polypill strategy may be cost-effective compared with optimising treatment as per guidelines or their current care, as long as the polypill cost is sufficiently low.

Background: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care., Methods/design: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care., Discussion: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care., Trial Registration: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Objective: Given the significant costs of reduced productivity (presenteeism) in comparison to absenteeism, and overall societal costs, presenteeism has a potentially important role to play in economic evaluations. However, these costs are often excluded. The objective of this study is to review applied cost of illness studies and economic evaluations to identify valuation methods used for, and impact of including presenteeism costs in practice., Methods: A structured systematic review was carried out to explore (i) the extent to which presenteeism has been applied in cost of illness studies and economic evaluations and (ii) the overall impact of including presenteeism on overall costs and outcomes. Potential articles were identified by searching Medline, PsycINFO and NHS EED databases. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from economic evaluations and cost of illness studies incorporating presenteeism costs., Results: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review which also demonstrated that presenteeism costs are rarely included in full economic evaluations. Estimation and monetisation methods differed between the instruments. The impact of disease on presenteeism whilst in paid work is high., Conclusions: The potential impact of presenteeism costs needs to be highlighted and greater consideration should be given to including these in economic evaluations and cost of illness studies. The importance of including presenteeism costs when conducting economic evaluation from a societal perspective should be emphasised in national economic guidelines and more methodological work is required to improve the practical application of presenteeism instruments to generate productivity cost estimates., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of joint protection and hand exercises for the management of hand OA is not well established. The primary aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of these management options. In addition, given the absence of consensus regarding the conduct of economic evaluation alongside factorial trials, we compare different analytical methodologies., Methods: A trial-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-utility of joint protection only, hand exercises only and joint protection plus hand exercises compared with leaflet and advice was undertaken over a 12 month period from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each trial arm. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. The base case analysis used a within-the-table analysis methodology. Two further methods were explored: the at-the-margins approach and a regression-based approach with or without an interaction term., Results: Mean costs (QALYs) were £58.46 (s.d. 0.662) for leaflet and advice, £92.12 (s.d. 0.659) for joint protection, £64.51 (s.d. 0.681) for hand exercises and £112.38 (s.d. 0.658) for joint protection plus hand exercises. In the base case, hand exercises were the cost-effective option, with an ICER of £318 per QALY gained. Hand exercises remained the most cost-effective management strategy when adopting alternative methodological approaches., Conclusion: This is the first trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of occupational therapy-supported approaches to self-management for hand OA. Our findings showed that hand exercises were the most cost-effective option., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

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., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Background: There is limited evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of occupational therapy (OT) approaches in the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Joint protection and hand exercises have been proposed by European guidelines, however the clinical and cost effectiveness of each intervention is unknown.This multicentre two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial aims to address the following questions:• Is joint protection delivered by an OT more effective in reducing hand pain and disability than no joint protection in people with hand OA in primary care?• Are hand exercises delivered by an OT more effective in reducing hand pain and disability than no hand exercises in people with hand OA in primary care?• Which of the four management approaches explored within the study (leaflet and advice, joint protection, hand exercise, or joint protection and hand exercise combined) provides the most cost-effective use of health care resources, Methods/design: Participants aged 50 years and over registered at three general practices in North Staffordshire and Cheshire will be mailed a health survey questionnaire (estimated mailing sample n = 9,500). Those fulfilling the eligibility criteria on the health survey questionnaire will be invited to attend a clinical assessment to assess for the presence of hand or thumb base OA using the ACR criteria. Eligible participants will be randomised to one of four groups: leaflet and advice; joint protection (looking after your joints); hand exercises; or joint protection and hand exercises combined (estimated n = 252). The primary outcome measure will be the OARSI/OMERACT responder criteria combining hand pain and disability (measured using the AUSCAN) and global improvement, 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will also be collected for example pain, functional limitation and quality of life. Outcomes will be collected at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The main analysis will be on an intention to treat basis and will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of joint protection and hand exercises for managing hand OA., Discussion: The findings will improve the cost-effective evidence based management of hand OA., Trial Registration: identifier: ISRCTN33870549.

Background and Purpose: 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., Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized, controlled trial; 973 patients ≥75 years of age with atrial fibrillation were recruited from primary care and randomly assigned to either take warfarin or aspirin. Follow-up was for a mean of 2.7 years. Costs of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events, anticoagulation clinic visits, and primary care utilization were determined. Clinical benefits were expressed in terms of a primary event avoided: fatal/nonfatal disabling stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, or systemic embolism. A cost-utility analysis was performed using quality-adjusted life years as the benefit measure., Results: Total costs over 4 years were lower in the warfarin group (difference, -£165; 95% CI, -£452-£89), primarily driven by the difference in primary event costs. The primary event rate over 4 years was lower in the warfarin group (0.049 versus 0.099), and the quality-adjusted life years score was higher (difference, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.07-0.11). With lower costs and a higher quality-adjusted life years score, warfarin is the dominant treatment, but the differences in both costs and effects are small., Conclusions: Warfarin is cost-effective compared with aspirin in atrial fibrillation patients age ≥75 years. These data support the anticoagulant therapy option in this high-risk patient population. However, the small differences in costs and effects indicate the importance of exploring patient preferences.

The use of self-monitoring of blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, to guide therapy decisions by physicians for patients with hypertension has been recently demonstrated to reduce blood pressure compared with using clinic monitoring (usual care). However, both the cost-effectiveness of these strategies compared with usual care, and whether the additional benefit of telemonitoring compared with self-monitoring alone could be considered value for money, are unknown. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of physician titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, to make hypertension treatment decisions in primary care compared with usual care. A Markov patient-level simulation model was developed taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The model adopted a lifetime time horizon with 6-month time cycles. At a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year, self-monitoring plus telemonitoring was the most cost-effective strategy (£17 424 per quality-adjusted life year gained) compared with usual care or self-monitoring alone (posting the results to the physician). However, deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that self-monitoring alone became the most cost-effective option when changing key assumptions around long-term effectiveness and time horizon. Overall, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that self-monitoring regardless of transmission modality was likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care (89% probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000/quality-adjusted life year), with high uncertainty as to whether telemonitoring or self-monitoring alone was the most cost-effective option. Self-monitoring in clinical practice is cost-effective and likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]