Search

Introduction: Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period., Methods: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period., Ethics and Dissemination: Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language)., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN15988757., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ADS has received speakers fees or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, GSK, Insmed, Novartis, Gilead and Zambon and has received grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis and the US COPD Foundation., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care., Design: Economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial., Setting: Four National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK: Queen's Hospital, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Northwick Park Hospital, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde; and North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust., Participants: 770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke., Interventions: Participants randomised to one of three programmes provided over a 12-week period: robot-assisted training plus usual care; the EULT programme plus usual care or usual care., Main Economic Outcome Measures: Mean healthcare resource use; costs to the NHS and personal social services in 2018 pounds; utility scores based on EQ-5D-5L responses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness reported as incremental cost per QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves., Results: At 6 months, on average usual care was the least costly option (£3785) followed by EULT (£4451) with robot-assisted training being the most costly (£5387). The mean difference in total costs between the usual care and robot-assisted training groups (£1601) was statistically significant (p<0.001). Mean QALYs were highest for the EULT group (0.23) but no evidence of a difference (p=0.995) was observed between the robot-assisted training (0.21) and usual care groups (0.21). The incremental cost per QALY at 6 months for participants randomised to EULT compared with usual care was £74 100. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that robot-assisted training was unlikely to be cost-effective and that EULT had a 19% chance of being cost-effective at the £20 000 willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Usual care was most likely to be cost-effective at all the WTP values considered in the analysis., Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that neither robot-assisted training nor EULT, as delivered in this trial, were likely to be cost-effective at any of the cost per QALY thresholds considered., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN69371850., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HR reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work; and Member of NIHR HTA CET panel 2010–2014. GF reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work. CP and LS report grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the study. HIK reports other from Interactive Motion Technologies, other from 4Motion Robotics, outside the submitted work; in addition, HIK has a patent Interactive Robotic Therapist; US Patent 5466213; 1995; Massachusetts Institute of Technology issued, and a patent Wrist And Upper Extremity Motion; US Patent No. 7618381; 2009; Massachusetts Institute of Technology licensed to Bionik Laboratories., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) are common conditions that can have a negative impact on the quality of life of patients and serious cost implications for healthcare providers. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of nine different surgical interventions for treatment of SUI and stress-predominant MUI from a National Health Service and personal social services perspective in the UK., Methods: A Markov microsimulation model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nine surgical interventions. The model was informed by undertaking a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and network meta-analysis. The main clinical parameters in the model were the cure and incidence rates of complications after different interventions. The outcomes from the model were expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. In addition, expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analyses were conducted to quantify the main uncertainties facing decision-makers., Results: The base-case results suggest that retropubic mid-urethral sling (retro-MUS) is the most cost-effective surgical intervention over a 10-year and lifetime time horizon. The probabilistic results show that retro-MUS and traditional sling are the interventions with the highest probability of being cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay thresholds over a lifetime time horizon. The value of information analysis results suggest that the largest value appears to be in removing uncertainty around the incidence rates of complications, the relative treatment effectiveness and health utility values., Conclusions: Although retro-MUS appears, at this stage, to be a cost-effective intervention, research is needed on possible long-term complications of all surgical treatments to provide reassurance of safety, or earlier warning of unanticipated adverse effects. The value of information analysis supports the need, as a first step, for further research to improve our knowledge of the actual incidence of complications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Intravenous thrombolysis is an effective emergency treatment for acute ischaemic stroke for patients meeting specific criteria. Approximately 12% of eligible patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland received thrombolysis in the first quarter of 2013, yet as many as 15% are eligible to receive treatment. Suboptimal use of thrombolysis may have been largely attributable to structural factors; however, with the widespread implementation of 24/7 hyper acute stroke services, continuing variation is likely to reflect differences in clinical decision-making, in particular the influence of ambiguous areas within the guidelines, licensing criteria and research evidence. Clinicians' perceptions about thrombolysis may now exert a greater influence on treatment rates than structural/service factors. This research seeks to elucidate factors influencing thrombolysis decision-making by using patient vignettes to identify (1) patient-related and clinician-related factors that may help to explain variation in treatment and (2) associated trade-offs in decision-making based on the interplay of critical factors., Methods/analysis: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) will be conducted to better understand how clinicians make decisions about whether or not to offer thrombolysis to patients with acute ischaemic stroke. To inform the design, exploratory work will be undertaken to ensure that (1) all potentially influential factors are considered for inclusion; and (2) to gain insights into the 'grey areas' of patient factors. A fractional factorial design will be used to combine levels of patient factors in vignettes, which will be presented to clinicians to allow estimation of the variable effects on decisions to offer thrombolysis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Newcastle University Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated in peer review publications and at national conferences. Findings will be translated into continuing professional development activities and will support implementation of a computerised decision aid for thrombolysis (COMPASS) in acute stroke care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)