Search

Background: When designing and analysing clinical trials, using previous relevant information, perhaps in the form of evidence syntheses, can reduce research waste. We conducted the INVEST (INVestigating the use of Evidence Synthesis in the design and analysis of clinical Trials) survey to summarise the current use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, to capture opinions of trialists and methodologists on such use, and to understand any barriers.Methods: Our sampling frame was all delegates attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in November 2015. Respondents were asked to indicate (1) their views on the use of evidence synthesis in trial design and analysis, (2) their own use during the past 10 years and (3) the three greatest barriers to use in practice.Results: Of approximately 638 attendees of the conference, 106 (17%) completed the survey, half of whom were statisticians. Support was generally high for using a description of previous evidence, a systematic review or a meta-analysis in trial design. Generally, respondents did not seem to be using evidence syntheses as often as they felt they should. For example, only 50% (42/84 relevant respondents) had used a meta-analysis to inform whether a trial is needed compared with 74% (62/84) indicating that this is desirable. Only 6% (5/81 relevant respondents) had used a value of information analysis to inform sample size calculations versus 22% (18/81) indicating support for this. Surprisingly large numbers of participants indicated support for, and previous use of, evidence syntheses in trial analysis. For example, 79% (79/100) of respondents indicated that external information about the treatment effect should be used to inform aspects of the analysis. The greatest perceived barrier to using evidence synthesis methods in trial design or analysis was time constraints, followed by a belief that the new trial was the first in the area.Conclusions: Evidence syntheses can be resource-intensive, but their use in informing the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials is widely considered desirable. We advocate additional research, training and investment in resources dedicated to ways in which evidence syntheses can be undertaken more efficiently, offering the potential for cost savings in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reliable estimates of the impacts of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage, with and without cardiovascular disease, on hospital costs are needed to inform health policy. Methods: The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) randomized trial prospectively collected information on kidney disease progression, serious adverse events and hospital care use in a cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe CKD. In a secondary analysis of SHARP data, the impact of participants' CKD stage, non-fatal cardiovascular events and deaths on annual hospital costs (i.e. all hospital admissions, routine dialysis treatments and recorded outpatient/day-case attendances in United Kingdom 2011 prices) were estimated using linear regression. Results: 7,246 SHARP patients (2,498 on dialysis at baseline) from Europe, North America, and Australasia contributed 28,261 years of data. CKD patients without diabetes or vascular disease incurred annual hospital care costs ranging from £403 (95% confidence interval: 345-462) in CKD stages 1-3B to £525 (449-602) in CKD stage 5 (not on dialysis). Patients in receipt of maintenance dialysis incurred annual hospital costs of £18,986 (18,620-19,352) in the year of initiation and £23,326 (23,231-23,421) annually thereafter. Patients with a functioning kidney transplant incurred £24,602 (24,027-25,178) in hospital care costs in the year of transplantation and £1,148 (978-1,318) annually thereafter. Non-fatal major vascular events increased annual costs in the year of the event by £6,133 (5,608-6,658) for patients on dialysis and by £4,350 (3,819-4,880) for patients not on dialysis, and were associated with increased costs, though to a lesser extent, in subsequent years. Conclusions: Renal replacement therapy and major vascular events are the main contributors to the high hospital care costs in moderate-to-severe CKD. These estimates of hospital costs can be used to inform health policy in moderate-to-severe CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community health workers (CHWs) were trained to identify children with malaria who could not take oral medication, treat them with rectal artesunate (RA) and refer them to the closest healthcare facility to complete management. However, many children with such symptoms did not seek CHWs' care. The hypothesis was that the cost of referral to a health facility was a deterrent. The goal of this study was to compare the out-of-pocket costs and time to seek treatment for children who sought CHW care (and received RA) versus those who did not. Methods: Children with symptoms of severe malaria receiving RA at CHWs and children with comparable disease symptoms who did not go to a CHW were identified and their parents were interviewed. Household out-of-pocket costs per illness episode and speed of treatment were evaluated and compared between RA-treated children vs. non-RA treated children and by central nervous symptoms (CNS: repeated convulsions, altered consciousness or coma). Results: Among children with CNS symptoms, costs of RA-treated children were similar to those of non-RA treated children ($5.83 vs. $4.65; p = 0.52), despite higher transport costs ($2.74 vs. $0.91; p < 0.0001). However, among children without CNS symptoms, costs of RA-treated children were higher than the costs of non-RA treated children with similar symptoms ($5.62 vs. $2.59; p = 0.0001), and the main driver of the cost difference was transport. After illness onset, CNS children reached CHWs for RA an average of 9.0 h vs. 16.1 h for non-RA treated children reaching first treatment [difference 7.1 h (95% CI − 1.8 to 16.1), p = 0.11]. For non-CNS patients the average time to CHW-delivered RA treatment was 12.2 h vs. 20.1 h for those reaching first treatment [difference 7.9 h (95% CI 0.2–15.6), p = 0.04]. More non-RA treated children developed CNS symptoms before arrival at the health centre but the difference was not statistically significant (6% vs. 4%; p = 0.58). Conclusions: Community health worker-delivered RA does not affect the total out-of-pocket costs when used in children with CNS symptoms, but is associated with higher total out-of-pocket costs when used in children with less severe symptoms. RA-treated children sought treatment more quickly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "The effect of diabetes complications on healthrelated quality of life: estimating the bias due to unobserved heterogeneity using the UKPDS," by Maria L. Alva, is presented.