Lisa Irvine

Cost-effectiveness of a day hospital falls prevention programme for screened community-dwelling older people at high risk of falls

Background: multifactorial falls prevention programmes for older people have been proved to reduce falls. However, evidence of their cost-effectiveness is mixed. Design: economic evaluation alongside pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Intervention: randomised trial of 364 people aged ≥70, living in the community, recruited via GP and identified as high risk of falling. Both arms received a falls prevention information leaflet. The intervention arm were also offered a (day hospital) multidisciplinary falls prevention programme, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy, nurse, medical review and referral to other specialists. Measurements: self-reported falls, as collected in 12 monthly diaries. Levels of health resource use associated with the falls prevention programme, screening (both attributed to intervention arm only) and other health-care contacts were monitored. Mean NHS costs and falls per person per year were estimated for both arms, along with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost effectiveness acceptability curve. Results: in the base-case analysis, the mean falls programme cost was £349 per person. This, coupled with higher screening and other health-care costs, resulted in a mean incremental cost of £578 for the intervention arm. The mean falls rate was lower in the intervention arm (2.07 per person/year), compared with the control arm (2.24). The estimated ICER was £3,320 per fall averted. Conclusions: the estimated ICER was £3,320 per fall averted. Future research should focus on adherence to the intervention and an assessment of impact on quality of life.

Extended and standard duration weight-loss programme referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP): a randomised controlled trial

Summary Background Evidence exist that primary care referral to an open-group behavioural programme is an effective strategy for management of obesity, but little evidence on optimal intervention duration is available. We aimed to establish whether 52-week referral to an open-group weight-management programme would achieve greater weight loss and improvements in a range of health outcomes and be more cost-effective than the current practice of 12-week referrals. Methods In this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants who were aged 18 years or older and had body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m2 or higher from 23 primary care practices in England. Participants were randomly assigned (2:5:5) to brief advice and self-help materials, a weight-management programme (Weight Watchers) for 12 weeks, or the same weight-management programme for 52 weeks. We followed-up participants over 2 years. The primary outcome was weight at 1 year of follow-up, analysed with mixed-effects models according to intention-to-treat principles and adjusted for centre and baseline weight. In a hierarchical closed-testing procedure, we compared combined behavioural programme arms with brief intervention, then compared the 12-week programme and 52-week programme. We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and modelled outcomes over a 25-year time horizon using microsimulation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN82857232. Findings Between Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we enrolled 1269 participants. 1267 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the brief intervention (n=211), the 12-week programme (n=528), and the 52-week programme (n=528). Two participants in the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis. 823 (65%) of 1267 participants completed an assessment at 1 year and 856 (68%) participants at 2 years. All eligible participants were included in the analyses. At 1 year, mean weight changes in the groups were −3·26 kg (brief intervention), −4·75 kg (12-week programme), and −6·76 kg (52-week programme). Participants in the behavioural programme lost more weight than those in the brief intervention (adjusted difference −2·71 kg, 95% CI −3·86 to −1·55; p<0·0001). The 52-week programme was more effective than the 12-week programme (−2·14 kg, −3·05 to −1·22; p<0·0001). Differences between groups were still significant at 2 years. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief intervention) was £159 per kg lost for the 52-week programme and £91 per kg for the 12-week programme. Modelled over 25 years after baseline, the ICER for the 12-week programme was dominant compared with the brief intervention. The ICER for the 52-week programme was cost-effective compared with the brief intervention (£2394 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and the 12-week programme (£3804 per QALY). Interpretation For adults with overweight or obesity, referral to this open-group behavioural weight-loss programme for at least 12 weeks is more effective than brief advice and self-help materials. A 52-week programme produces greater weight loss and other clinical benefits than a 12-week programme and, although it costs more, modelling suggests that the 52-week programme is cost-effective in the longer term. Funding National Prevention Research Initiative, Weight Watchers International (as part of an UK Medical Research Council Industrial Collaboration Award).

Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention in preventing Type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES Previous research has suggested people with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) are less likely to develop Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) if they receive prolonged structured diet and exercise advice. This study examined the within-trial cost-effectiveness of such lifestyle interventions. METHODS Screen-detected participants with either newly diagnosed T2DM or IFG were randomized 2:1 to intervention versus control (usual care) between February and December 2009, in Norfolk (UK). The intervention consisted of group based education, physiotherapy and peer support sessions, plus telephone contacts from T2DM volunteers. We monitored healthcare resource use, intervention costs, and quality of life (EQ-5D). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (incremental cost effectiveness ratio [ICER]), and cost effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were estimated. RESULTS In total, 177 participants were recruited (118 intervention, 59 controls), with a mean follow-up of 7 months. Excluding screening and recruitment costs, the mean cost was estimated to be £551 per participant in the intervention arm, compared with £325 in the control arm. The QALY gains were -0.001 and -0.004, respectively. The intervention was estimated to have an ICER of £67,184 per QALY (16 percent probability of being cost-effective at the £20,000/QALY threshold). Cost-effectiveness estimates were more favorable for IFG participants and those with longer follow-up (≥ 4 months) (ICERs of £20,620 and £17,075 per QALY, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Group sessions to prevent T2DM were not estimated to be within current limits of cost-effectiveness. However, there was a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these estimates, suggesting the need for further research.

EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: The Impact on Cost Effectiveness in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES To model the relationship between the three-level (3L) and the five-level (5L) EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire and examine how differences have an impact on cost effectiveness in case studies. METHODS We used two data sets that included the 3L and 5L versions from the same respondents. The EuroQol Group data set (n = 3551) included patients with different diseases and a healthy cohort. The National Data Bank data set included patients with rheumatoid disease (n = 5205). We estimated a system of ordinal regressions in each data set using copula models to link responses of the 3L instrument to those of the 5L instrument and its UK tariff, and vice versa. Results were applied to nine cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS Best-fitting models differed between the EuroQol Group and the National Data Bank data sets in terms of the explanatory variables, copulas, and coefficients. In both cases, the coefficients of the covariates and latent factors between the 3L and the 5L instruments were significantly different, indicating that moving between instruments is not simply a uniform re-alignment of the response levels for most dimensions. In the case studies, moving from the 3L to the 5L caused a decrease of up to 87% in incremental quality-adjusted life-years gained from effective technologies in almost all cases. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios increased, often substantially. Conversely, one technology with a significant mortality gain saw increased incremental quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSIONS The 5L shifts mean utility scores up the utility scale toward full health and compresses them into a smaller range, compared with the 3L. Improvements in quality of life are valued less using the 5L than using the 3L. The 3L and the 5L can produce substantially different estimates of cost effectiveness. There is no simple proportional adjustment that can be made to reconcile these differences.

An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of an established programme of occupational therapy in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity in care home residents living with stroke sequelae. Design Pragmatic, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 228 care homes (>10 beds each), both with and without the provision of nursing care, local to 11 trial administrative centres across the United Kingdom. Participants 1042 care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including those with language and cognitive impairments, not receiving end of life care. 114 homes (n=568 residents, 64% from homes providing nursing care) were allocated to the intervention arm and 114 homes (n=474 residents, 65% from homes providing nursing care) to standard care (control arm). Participating care homes were randomised between May 2010 and March 2012. Intervention Targeted three month programme of occupational therapy, delivered by qualified occupational therapists and assistants, involving patient centred goal setting, education of care home staff, and adaptations to the environment. Main outcome measures Primary outcome at the participant level: scores on the Barthel index of activities of daily living at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures at the participant level: Barthel index scores at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and scores on the Rivermead mobility index, geriatric depression scale-15, and EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, at all time points. Results 64% of the participants were women and 93% were white, with a mean age of 82.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups for all measures, personal characteristics, and diagnostic tests. Overall, 2538 occupational therapy visits were made to 498 participants in the intervention arm (mean 5.1 visits per participant). No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. 162 (11%) died before the primary outcome time point, and 313 (30%) died over the 12 months of the trial. The primary outcome measure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Barthel index score at three months was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm (95% confidence interval −0.33 to 0.70, P=0.48). Secondary outcome measures also showed no significant differences at all time points. Conclusions This large phase III study provided no evidence of benefit for the provision of a routine occupational therapy service, including staff training, for care home residents living with stroke related disabilities. The established three month individualised course of occupational therapy targeting stroke related disabilities did not have an impact on measures of functional activity, mobility, mood, or health related quality of life, at all observational time points. Providing and targeting ameliorative care in this clinically complex population requires alternative strategies. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00757750.

A Motivational Peer Support Program for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention Delivered by People With Type 2 Diabetes The UEA-IFG Feasibility Study

Purpose The purpose of this study was to develop a peer support program for individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes as part of a novel Diabetes Prevention Programme (The UEA-IFG Study). Lay members of the public with existing type 2 diabetes volunteered as peer supporters (termed type 2 trainers) for participants at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The feasibility of type 2 trainer recruitment, training, and retention was tested. Methods Between January and September 2009, 1500 potential type 2 trainers with existing type 2 diabetes were contacted and 168 (11%) expressed an interest. From this group, 26 type 2 trainers were appointed to begin training. All completed 7 training seminars, covering diabetes prevention, nutrition, physical activity, listening skills, motivation, and goal planning. Motivational calls were made every 12 weeks to each study participant by each type 2 trainer in addition to health care professional–delivered education sessions. Results Twenty-six type 2 trainers were recruited to enter the program. One type 2 trainer withdrew before beginning their role. The retention rate was high, with 22 (89%) of the type 2 trainers continuing until study end (July 2010; 20 months), with a total of 240 phone calls made. Conclusion The recruiting and training of lay volunteers with existing type 2 diabetes as type 2 trainers to support study participants at risk of developing the same condition was a cost-effective strategy in comparison to employing salaried health care professionals and warrants further investigation on health outcomes.

Determining in-patient diabetes treatment satisfaction in the UK—the DIPSat study

To measure in‐patient diabetes treatment satisfaction and its relationship to in‐patient diabetes care.

Pharmacist provided medicines reconciliation within 24 hours of admission and on discharge: a randomised controlled pilot study

Background The UK government currently recommends that all patients receive medicines reconciliation (MR) from a member of the pharmacy team within 24 hours of admission and subsequent discharge. The cost-effectiveness of this intervention is unknown. A pilot study to inform the design of a future randomised controlled trial to determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-delivered service was undertaken. Method Patients were recruited 7 days a week from 5 adult medical wards in 1 hospital over a 9 month period and randomised using an automated system to intervention (MR within 24 hours of admission and at discharge) or usual care which may include MR (control). Recruitment and retention rates were determined. Length of stay (LOS), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), unintentional discrepancies (UDs) and emergency readmission (ER) within 3 months were tested as outcome measures. The feasibility of identifying and measuring intervention-associated resources was determined. Result 200 patients were randomised to either intervention or control. Groups were comparable at baseline. 95 (99%) patients in the intervention received MR within 24 hours, while 62 (60.8%) control patients received MR at some point during admission. The intervention resolved 250 of the 255 UDs identified at admission. Only 2 UDs were identified in the intervention group at discharge compared with 268 in the control. The median LOS was 94 hours in the intervention arm and 118 hours in the control, with ER rates of 17.9% and 26.7%, respectively. Assuming 5% loss to follow-up 1120 patients (560 in each arm) are required to detect a 6% reduction in 3-month ER rates. Conclusions The results suggest that changes in outcome measures resulting from MR within 24 hours were in the appropriate direction and readmission within 3 months is the most appropriate primary outcome measure. A future study to determine cost-effectiveness of the intervention is feasible and warranted. Trial registration number ISRCTN23949491.

The outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care in the community for people with rheumatoid arthritis: a non-randomised pragmatic study

Objective To determine the outcome and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care in the community for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Design Non-randomised pragmatic study. Setting Primary (7 primary care practices) and secondary care (single centre) in the UK. Methods In a single area, pragmatic non-randomised study, we assessed the outcome, cost-effectiveness of community-based nurse-led care (NLC) compared with rheumatologist-led outpatient care (RLC). Participants were 349 adults (70% female) with stable RA assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. In the community NLC arm there were 192 participants. Outcome was assessed using Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). The economic evaluation (healthcare perspective) estimated cost relative to change in HAQ and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) derived from EQ-5D-3L. We report complete case and multiple imputation results from regression analyses. Results The demographics and baseline characteristics of patients in the community group were comparable to those under hospital care apart from use of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS), which were adjusted for in the analysis. The mean incremental cost was estimated to be £224 less for RLC compared to the community NLC, with wide CIs (CI –£213 to £701, p=0.296). Levels of functional disability were not clinically significantly higher in the community NLC group: HAQ 0.096 (95% CI −0.026 to 0.206; p=0.169) and QALY 0.023 (95% CI −0.059 to 0.012; p=0.194). Conclusions The results suggest that community care may be associated with non-significant higher costs with no significant differences in clinical outcomes, and this suggests a low probability that it is cost-effective.

Wordless intervention for people with epilepsy and learning disabilities (WIELD):A randomised controlled feasibility trial

Objective To investigate the feasibility of a full-scale randomised controlled trial of a picture booklet to improve quality of life for people with epilepsy and learning disabilities. Trial design A randomised controlled feasibility trial. Randomisation was not blinded and was conducted using a centralised secure database and a blocked 1:1 allocation ratio. Setting Epilepsy clinics in 1 English National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Participants Patients with learning disabilities and epilepsy who had: a seizure within the past 12 months, meaningful communication and a carer with sufficient proficiency in English. Intervention Participants in the intervention group used a picture booklet with a trained researcher, and a carer present. These participants kept the booklet, and were asked to use it at least twice more over 20 weeks. The control group received treatment as usual, and were provided with a booklet at the end of the study. Outcome measures 7 feasibility criteria were used relating to recruitment, data collection, attrition, potential effect on epilepsy-related quality of life (Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life Scale, ELDQOL) at 4-week, 12-week and 20-week follow-ups, feasibility of methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness. Outcome The recruitment rate of eligible patients was 34% and the target of 40 participants was reached. There was minimal missing data and attrition. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed; data from the outcome measures suggest a benefit from the intervention on the ELDQOL behaviour and mood subscales at 4 and 20 weeks follow-up. The booklet and study methods were positively received, and no adverse events were reported. There was a positive indication of the potential for a cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusions All feasibility criteria were fully or partially met, therefore confirming feasibility of a definitive trial. Trial registration number ISRCTN80067039.