Search

Objectives: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials., Methods: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus., Results: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items., Conclusions: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) is a technique with suggested advantages over TURP, including reduced complications and hospital stay. We aimed to investigate TURP versus ThuVARP in men with lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction., Methods: In this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, men in seven UK hospitals with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms or urinary retention secondary to benign prostatic obstruction were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of surgery to receive ThuVARP or TURP. Patients were masked until follow-up completion. Centres used their usual TURP procedure (monopolar or bipolar). All trial surgeons underwent training on the ThuVARP technique. Co-primary outcomes were maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12-months post-surgery. Equivalence was defined as a difference of 2·5 points or less for IPSS and 4 mL per s or less for Qmax. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN00788389., Findings: Between July 23, 2014, and Dec 30, 2016, 410 men were randomly assigned to ThuVARP or TURP, 205 per study group. TURP was superior for Qmax (mean 23·2 mL per s for TURP and 20·2 mL per s for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means -3·12, 95% CI -5·79 to -0·45). Equivalence was shown for IPSS (mean 6·3 for TURP and 6·4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0·28, -0·92 to 1·49). Mean hospital stay was 48 h in both study groups. 91 (45%) of 204 patients in the TURP group and 96 (47%) of 203 patients in the ThuVARP group had at least one complication., Interpretation: TURP and ThuVARP were equivalent for urinary symptom improvement (IPSS) 12-months post-surgery, and TURP was superior for Qmax. Anticipated laser benefits for ThuVARP of reduced hospital stay and complications were not observed., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Core outcome set (COS) development often begins with a systematic review to identify outcomes. Reviews frequently show heterogeneity in numbers of outcomes reported across trials. Contributing to this is a lack of a uniform definition for an outcome. This study proposes a first working definition for a unique trial outcome to support reporting a quantitative assessment of outcome reporting heterogeneity (ORH)., Study Design and Setting: Eligible COS literature (development papers, protocols, and reviews) were identified using the COMET database, Ovid MEDLINE, and PubMed. Outcome numbers, definitions, timing, and grouping methodology were examined., Results: One hundred and thirty two studies were included. 82 (88.1%) studies (excluding protocols) reported a total number of unique outcomes (median, 82; range, 12-5776; IQR, 261). Timing of assessment was reported in 32 (31.4%) studies. Methods to group similar outcomes were reported in 8 (7.8%) articles. No study defined how outcomes were agreed as different and how final numbers of unique outcomes were determined. It is proposed that a unique outcome requires original meaning and context. Thus ORH is suggested to be the reporting of multiple unique outcomes across trials related to one health care condition., Conclusion: This review identified inconsistencies in how authors define, extract, group, and count trial outcomes. Further work is needed to refine our proposed definitions to optimize COS development and allow a quantifiable measure of ORH., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden., Objectives: To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective., Methods: Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set., Results: Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules., Conclusions: The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Lower urinary tract symptoms are common among older women. The Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (BFLUTS) questionnaire was designed to assess a wide range of symptoms, including incontinence, and impact on sexual function and quality of life. This paper describes development and validation of a scored form BFLUTS questionnaire., Study Design: Baseline and 6-month follow-up data from a randomized trial compared tension-free vaginal tape with colposuspension for 344 women with urodynamically proven stress incontinence. Problematic and responsive items were identified and subjected to factor analysis to develop a scoring system., Results: Three domains were identified to assess symptoms: incontinence (5 items); voiding (3 items); and filling (4 items); with additional subscales for sexual function (2 items) and quality of life (5 items). All scales have simple additive scores., Conclusion: A scored form of the BFLUTS questionnaire is now available and should be useful in research and clinical practice in urology and gynecology.

Objective: Despite guidelines recommending the use of formal tests of interaction in subgroup analyses in clinical trials, inappropriate subgroup-specific analyses continue. Moreover, trials designed to detect overall treatment effects have limited power to detect treatment-subgroup interactions. This article quantifies the error rates associated with subgroup analyses., Study Design and Setting: Simulations quantified the risks of misinterpreting subgroup analyses as evidence of differential subgroup effects and the limited power of the interaction test in trials designed to detect overall treatment effects., Results: Although formal interaction tests performed as expected with respect to false positives, subgroup-specific tests were considerably less reliable: A significant effect in one subgroup only was observed in 7% to 64% of simulations depending on trial characteristics. Regarding power of the interaction test, a trial with 80% power for the overall effect had only 29% power to detect an interaction effect of the same magnitude. For interactions of this size to be detected with the same power as the overall effect, sample sizes should be inflated fourfold, increasing dramatically for interactions smaller than 20% of the overall effect., Conclusion: Although it is generally recognized that subgroup analyses can produce spurious results, the extent of the problem may be underestimated.