UK National Health Service Perspective Research Articles

Direct and indirect costs of paediatric asthma in the UK: a cost analysis

ObjectiveTo estimate the cost of paediatric asthma from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective and explore determinants of these costs.DesignCost analysis based on data from a large...

An early economic evaluation of Kooth, a web-based mental health platform for children and young people with emerging mental health needs

Background“Kooth” is a web-based mental health platform commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS), local authorities, charities, and businesses in the UK. The platform gives children and young people (CYP) access to an online community of peers and a team of counsellors. This study reports an early economic evaluation of the potential benefits of Kooth in the UK. MethodsAn early evidence cost calculator was built to estimate the potential costs and savings of implementing Kooth from a UK NHS and crime sector perspective. A decision tree structure was used to track the progress of CYP with emerging mental health needs (EMHN), comparing CYP with access to Kooth to CYP without access to Kooth. The model implemented a 12-month time horizon and followed a typical Kooth contract in relation to costing, engagement, and CYP demographics. ResultsThe base case results followed a cohort of 2160 CYP. The results of the cost calculator estimated that engagement with Kooth is associated with a cost saving of £469,237 to the NHS across a 12-month time horizon, or £236.15 per CYP with an EMHN. From a combined NHS and UK crime sector perspective, the cost savings increased to £489,897, or £246.54 per CYP with an EMHN. The largest cost savings were provided by an estimated reduction of 5346 GP appointments and 298 antidepressant prescriptions. For this cohort, the model predicted that engagement with Kooth averted 6 hospitalisations due to suicidal ideation and 13 hospitalisations due to self-harm. Furthermore, the number of smokers and binge drinkers was reduced by 20 and 24, respectively. When a crime sector perspective was taken, 3 crimes were averted. DiscussionThis early model demonstrates that Kooth has the potential to be a cost-saving intervention from both an NHS and a combined NHS and UK crime sector perspective. Cost savings were provided through aversion in clinical and social outcomes. The model used a conservative approach to balance the uncertainty around assumptions of the intermediate outcomes (GP and medication use). However, it is limited by a paucity of costing data and published evidence relating to the impact of digital mental health platforms.

Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections.DesignMulticentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.SettingEight centres in the UK, recruiting from June...

An Economic Evaluation of a Streamlined Day-Case Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Protocol and Conventional Cryoballoon Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs in a UK Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Population.

Symptom control for atrial fibrillation can be achieved by catheter ablation or drug therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of a novel streamlined atrial fibrillation cryoballoon ablation protocol (AVATAR) compared with optimised antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and a conventional catheter ablation protocol, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Data from the AVATAR study were assessed to determine the cost effectiveness of the three protocols in a two-step process. In the first stage, statistical analysis of clinical efficacy outcomes was conducted considering either a three-way comparison (AVATAR vs. conventional ablation vs. optimised AAD therapies) or a two-way comparison (pooled ablation protocol data vs. optimised AAD therapies). In the second stage, models assessed the cost effectiveness of the protocols. Costs and some of the clinical inputs in the models were derived from within-trial cost analysis and published literature. The remaining inputs were derived from clinical experts. No significant differences between the ablation protocols were found for any of the clinical outcomes used in the model. Results of a within-trial cost analysis show that AVATAR is cost-saving (£1279 per patient) compared with the conventional ablation protocol. When compared with optimised AAD therapies, AVATAR (pooled conventional and AVATAR ablation protocols efficacy) was found to be more costly while offering improved clinical benefits. Over a lifetime time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AVATAR was estimated as £21,046 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% credible interval £7086-£71,718). The AVATAR streamlined protocol is likely to be a cost-effective option versus both conventional ablation and optimised AAD therapy in the UK NHS healthcare setting.

Cost-utility analysis of sequential therapy with sorafenib followed by regorafenib versus single-line therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

529 Background: Regorafenib is the only licensed second-line therapy available for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progress on first-line sorafenib in the UK. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a sequence of treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib (SOR-REG) compared with licensed single-line therapies for which there is no clear sequencing options available, including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATEZO+BEV), which has become the standard of care in first-line treatment, as well as lenvatinib (LEN), followed by best supportive care (BSC). Methods: Assuming a UK National Health Service and Social Services perspective, we developed a probabilistic individual-level semi-Markov model with states reflecting progression-free survival, progression following first-line treatment, further progression following second-line treatment, and death. First-line overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were informed by fractional polynomials network meta-analysis of published trials. Individual patient data from a phase 3 trial (RESORCE) on regorafenib and BSC informed OS and PFS in the second-line setting. Costs and utilities were sourced from published studies. Cost-effectiveness was summarized using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), which could be positive or negative depending on direction of expected benefit associated with SOR-REG, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Results: We found 1000 probabilistic samples and 1000 patients were sufficient for convergence. Lifetime costs were highest with ATEZO-BEV ([£80,963 [95% CI: £11,022, £97,369]), followed by SOR-REG (£38,373 [£31,064, £43,420]) and LEN (£37,351 [£5,020, £55,800]). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were highest with ATEZO+BEV (1.021 [0.152, 1.239), followed by SOR-REG (0.942 [0.802, 1.057]) and LEN (0.755, [0.094, 1.092]). At a WTP threshold of £30,000 / QALY gained, SOR-REG had an INMB of £40,211 (95% CI -£2,099, £52,731) and £4,589 (-£8,044, £14,481) versus ATEZO+BEV and LEN, respectively. Conclusions: A sequence of SOR-REG for patients with advanced HCC is cost-effective at WTP thresholds of £30,000 / QALY gained due to lower lifetime costs and broadly comparable QALY gains with single-line ATEZO-BEV and LEN in the UK. Broader second-line treatment options are needed for patients receiving ATEZO+BEV and LEN as first-line therapies.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care.DesignEconomic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK...

Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod in rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom

Aim To evaluate the real-world comparative effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness, from a UK National Health Service perspective, of natalizumab versus fingolimod in patients with rapidly evolving severe relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RES-RRMS). Methods Real-world data from the MSBase Registry were obtained for patients with RES-RRMS who were previously either naive to disease-modifying therapies or had been treated with interferon-based therapies, glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide (collectively known as BRACETD). Matched cohorts were selected by 3-way multinomial propensity score matching, and the annualized relapse rate (ARR) and 6-month–confirmed disability worsening (CDW6M) and improvement (CDI6M) were compared between treatment groups. Comparative effectiveness results were used in a cost-effectiveness model comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, using an established Markov structure over a lifetime horizon with health states based on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Additional model data sources included the UK MS Survey 2015, published literature, and publicly available sources. Results In the comparative effectiveness analysis, we found a significantly lower ARR for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (rate ratio [RR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57–0.73) or BRACETD (RR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42–0.53). Similarly, CDI6M was higher for patients starting natalizumab compared with fingolimod (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01–1.55) and BRACETD (HR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16–1.85). In patients starting fingolimod, we found a lower ARR (RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65–0.80) compared with starting BRACETD, but no difference in CDI6M (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91–1.50). Differences in CDW6M were not found between the treatment groups. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, natalizumab dominated fingolimod (0.302 higher quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and £17,141 lower predicted lifetime costs). Similar cost-effectiveness results were observed across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions This MSBase Registry analysis suggests that natalizumab improves clinical outcomes when compared with fingolimod, which translates to higher QALYs and lower costs in UK patients with RES-RRMS.

OP83 Diagnostic Accuracy And Cost Effectiveness Of Automated Ankle Brachial Pressure Index Measurement For Peripheral Arterial Disease In People With Leg Ulceration

IntroductionLeg ulcers are usually treated with compression therapy unless there is evidence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Compression may lead to vascular complications in people with PAD. Timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment are important to ensure the best patient outcomes. PAD is usually assessed using a manual ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI). Automated devices may reduce time to diagnosis and treatment of leg ulcers. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of automated ABPI measurement, compared with manual doppler testing, to detect PAD in people with leg ulcers.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies of any design assessing automated devices in any population. Meta-analyses were conducted where possible. A decision tree and Markov model was used to capture lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost effectiveness from a UK National Health Service perspective. Sensitivity analyses captured the uncertainty surrounding model assumptions and probabilistic sensitivity analyses described parameter uncertainty. Value of information analysis was conducted to identify future research priorities.ResultsA total of 22 studies provided diagnostic accuracy data for five automated devices, but there were no studies in people with leg ulcers. Meta-analysis of 12 studies demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 64 percent (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57, 71) and a specificity of 96 percent (95% CI: 92, 98) for detecting PAD. Automated devices were cheaper to complete due to shorter test times, but the increased risk of inappropriate or delayed treatment due to inaccurate test results offset the cost savings and reduced the QALYs for automated devices.ConclusionsGiven the current limited evidence base, automated devices would only be cost effective if they can demonstrate substantial reductions in time to diagnosis in clinical practice. Value of information analysis identified the following research priorities: (i) to determine diagnostic accuracy in a population with leg ulcers; (ii) to determine the impact of test results on ulcer healing times, and (iii) to determine the risk of providing inappropriate treatment based on inaccurate test results.

OGBN P15 The cost-effectiveness of a novel implantable device for treating gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in the United Kingdom

Abstract Background Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a common gastrointestinal condition characterized by heartburn, chest pain, and regurgitation. Chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-based medical management is the current standard of care, with antireflux surgery considered in selected patients. RefluxStop is a novel implantable device indicated for patients eligible for laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop against other GORD treatment options in the UK. Methods A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared with PPI-based medical management, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) for management of GORD. The UK National Health Service perspective was adopted, with clinical outcomes and costs estimated over a lifetime horizon and an annual discount rate of 3.5% applied. Clinical efficacy data for RefluxStop was obtained from its CE mark study, and comparator treatments were based on published literature. Results RefluxStop demonstrated favorable surgical outcomes compared to both laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication and MSA. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with PPIs, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and MSA were £4,156, £6,517, and £249 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. With a UK cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probabilities that RefluxStop was cost-effective compared with PPIs, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and MSA were 100%, 93%, and 100%, respectively. Conclusions Based on this analysis, RefluxStop was estimated to improve quality of life and extend life expectancy in GORD patients when compared to PPIs, laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication, and MSA. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrated that RefluxStop is highly likely to be a cost-effective option for treating GORD in the UK.

Early lowering of LDL-C is a more cost-effective strategy than lowering LDL-C later in life: a cost-effectiveness analysis using Mendelian Randomisation

Abstract Background Early control of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is an effective way to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). However, a comprehensive assessment of cost-effectiveness of different lipid-lowering strategies (LLS) for primary prevention of CHD across different ages is lacking. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of four different LLS initiated at ages 30, 40, 50, and 60 years on the primary prevention of CHD from the UK National Health Service perspective. Design, setting and participants: We developed a microsimulation model, based on the causal effect of LDL-C on myocardial infarction (MI) or coronary death derived from Mendelian randomisation, comparing initiation of an LLS to current standard of care (control). Data were primarily drawn from 458,727 participants of the UK Biobank study with available data on date of birth, LDL-C, and who were free of MI at first assessment (between 2006 and 2010), with follow-up until 2021. Interventions: The four LLS were: 1) low/moderate intensity statins; 2) high intensity statins; 3) low/moderate intensity statins and ezetimibe; and 4) inclisiran. Main outcomes measures: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental healthcare costs divided by the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each LLS compared to control, with 3.5% annual discounting. Results The most effective intervention, low/moderate intensity statins and ezetimibe, was projected to lead to a gain in QALYs of 0.068 per person at age 30 and 0.026 at age 60 compared to control (Figure). The age of intervention with the lowest ICER was age 40, with ICERs of £2,524 (95% uncertainty interval: 1,383, 3,796), £4,466 (3,163, 6,134) £11,118 (8,632, 14,177), and £1,405,123 (1,117,1113, 1,789,012) per QALY gained for strategies 1-4 from age 40 years, respectively (Table). Conclusions LDL-C lowering from early ages is a more cost-effective strategy than late intervention. The approach to primary prevention of CHD may improve with a shift to early and sustained lowering of LDL-C. Figure – Results of 1,000 probabilistic sensitivity analyses presented in a common cost-effectiveness plane, by age of intervention. Inclisiran excluded due to very high costs. Solid line: £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) willingness-to-pay threshold; dashed line: £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Any dot to the right of these lines is considered cost-effective. Table – Summary of LLS interventions by age of intervention. Abbreviations: MI – Myocardial infarction; YLL – Years of life lived; QALYs – Quality-adjusted life-years; ICER – Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.FigureTable

Subthreshold micropulse laser versus standard laser for the treatment of central-involving diabetic macular oedema with central retinal thickness of

ObjectivesTo estimate the economic costs, health-related quality-of-life outcomes and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) versus standard laser (SL) for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) with central retinal...

Lipid-Lowering Strategies for Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in the UK: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of four different lipid-lowering strategies for primary prevention of coronary heart disease initiated at ages 30, 40, 50, and 60 years from the UK National Health Service perspective. We developed a microsimulation model comparing the initiation of a lipid-lowering strategy to current standard of care (control). We included 458,692 participants of the UK Biobank study. The four lipid-lowering strategies were: (1) low/moderate-intensity statins; (2) high-intensity statins; (3) low/moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe; and (4) inclisiran. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each lipid-lowering strategy compared to the control, with 3.5% annual discounting using 2021 GBP (£); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared to the UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The most effective intervention, low/moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe, was projected to lead to a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.067 per person initiated at 30 and 0.026 at age 60 years. Initiating therapy at 40 years of age was the most cost effective for all lipid-lowering strategies, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £2553 (95% uncertainty interval: 1270, 3969), £4511 (3138, 6401), £11,107 (8655, 14,508), and £1,406,296 (1,121,775, 1,796,281) per quality-adjusted life-year gained for strategies 1-4, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lower for male individuals (vs female individuals) and for people with higher (vs lower) low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. For example, low/moderate-intensity statin use initiated from age 40 years had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5891 (3822, 9348), £2174 (772, 4216), and was dominant (i.e. cost saving; -2,760, 350) in female individuals with a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol of ≥ 3.0, ≥ 4.0 and ≥ 5.0 mmol/L, respectively. Inclisiran was not cost effective in any sub-group at its current price. Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol lowering from early ages is a more cost-effective strategy than late intervention and cost effectiveness increased with the increasing lifetime risk of coronary heart disease.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT): a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19-88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference -3·05, 95% CI -3·83 to -2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d -0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK.

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective. The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses. FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Electrostimulation Devices for Wounds

&#x0D; We found that electrostimulation as an adjunct to usual wound care might be better than usual care alone for wound management without increasing the risk of adverse events.&#x0D; Electrostimulation therapy may have greater effectiveness for patients with chronic wounds versus acute wounds or those with venous leg ulcers (VLUs) who do not have surgery compared with those who do have surgery.&#x0D; Electrostimulation using pulsed current may have greater effectiveness on wound management than using direct current for patients with pressure ulcers.&#x0D; Limited evidence from subgroup analyses suggests that the effectiveness of electrostimulation may be similar to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in wound surface area (WSA) and time to complete wound healing.&#x0D; One economic evaluation study used a within-trial time horizon (up to 24 weeks) and, based on the UK National Health Service perspective, suggests that electrostimulation is less costly and more effective than placebo at 24 weeks. We did not find any studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness between electrostimulation and NPWT that met the inclusion criteria for this report.&#x0D; One guideline suggests using electrostimulation as an adjunct intervention for managing postoperative pain in patients who have undergone elective caesarean section; another guideline strongly recommends against physical therapies (including electrostimulation) for diabetic foot ulcer management.&#x0D; A patient with lived experience of using an electrostimulation device for the treatment of a wound was involved in this report. He identified outcomes that are important to patients, primarily avoiding hospitalization and surgery, which were not outcomes reported in the identified literature. Considerations included the accessibility of the devices, training, and integration into homecare services.&#x0D;

Pain with neuropathic characteristics after surgically treated lower limb fractures: Cost analysis and pain medication use.

Neuropathic pain is prevalent among people after lower limb fracture surgery and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disability. This study estimates the financial cost and pain medication use associated with neuropathic pain in this group. A secondary analysis using pain data collected over six postoperative months from participants randomised in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) trial. Pain states were classified as pain-free, chronic non-neuropathic pain (NNP) or chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Cost associated with each pain state from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective were estimated by multivariate models based on multiple imputed data. Pain medication usage was analysed by pain state. A total of 934 participants who provided either 3- or 6-months pain data were included. Compared to participants with NP, those with NNP (adjusted mean difference -£730, p = 0.38, 95% CI -2368 to 908) or were pain-free (adjusted mean difference -£716, p = 0.53, 95% CI -2929 to 1497) had lower costs from the NHS and PSS perspective in the first three postoperative months. Over the first three postoperative months, almost a third of participants with NP were prescribed opioids and 8% were prescribed NP medications. Similar trends were observed by 6months postoperatively. This study found healthcare costs were higher amongst those with chronic NP compared to those who were pain-free or had chronic NNP. Opioids, rather than neuropathic pain medications, were commonly prescribed for NP over the first six postoperative months, contrary to clinical guidelines.

EE506 Targeted Intraoperative Radiation Therapy As an Adjuvant to Surgery for the Treatment of Breast Cancer in England: A UK-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Intrabeam

Whole-breast external beam radiotherapy (WB-EBRT) is the standard of care in the UK among patients with early invasive breast cancer (BC) following breast-conserving surgery but is associated with short- and long-term adverse effects. The INTRABEAM® device may be used to deliver adjuvant targeted intraoperative radiation therapy (TARGIT-IORT) to patients with early BC at the time of surgery, while reducing treatment-associated burden, resource utilization, and exposure to radiation and relevant toxicities. An economic evaluation was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of INTRABEAM over a lifetime horizon, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel, non-active implantable device as a treatment for refractory gastro-esophageal reflux disease

AimsGastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, chronic gastrointestinal condition characterized by heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, and bloating. The current standard of care includes chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or, in selected patients, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. RefluxStop is a novel implantable device indicated for GERD patients eligible for laparoscopic surgical treatment. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop against available treatment options for GERD.Material and methodsA Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared with PPI-based medical management (MM) and two surgical management options, LNF and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA, LINX system), in people with GERD. Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective and an annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied.ResultsRefluxStop showed favorable surgical outcomes compared with both LNF and MSA. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with MM, LNF, and MSA were £4,156, £6,517, and £249 per QALY gained, respectively. At the UK cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability that RefluxStop was cost-effective against MM, LNF, and MSA was 100%, 93%, and 100%, respectively.LimitationsThe model presented the results of a comparison, with evidence for RefluxStop derived from its single-arm CE mark trial and that for comparators from the literature. The varied clinical care pathway of individual GERD patients was necessarily simplified for modeling purposes, and necessary assumptions were made; however, the model results proved robust to sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIntroduction of RefluxStop was estimated to extend life expectancy and improve quality-of-life of GERD patients when compared with MM, LNF, and MSA. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that RefluxStop is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment option within NHS England.

The Economic Potential of Smoking Cessation Interventions at the Point of Diagnosis of Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

ObjectivesStopping smoking has proven benefits in nearly all illnesses but the impact and health economic benefits of stopping smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer are less well defined. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation (SC) services for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer against current usual care, where patients are unlikely to receive SC service referral. MethodsA health economic model was constructed in Excel. The modelled population comprised of patients with a new diagnosis of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the LungCast data set (Clinical Trials Identifier NCT01192256) were used to estimate model inputs. A structured search of published literature identified inputs not represented in LungCast, including healthcare resource use and costs. Costs were estimated from a 2020/2021 UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. The model estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC receiving targeted SC intervention than those receiving no intervention. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses explored input and data set uncertainty. ResultsIn the 5-year base case, the model estimated an incremental cost of £14 904 per QALY gained through SC intervention. Sensitivity analysis estimated an outcome range of between £9935 and £32 246 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to the estimates of relative quit rates and expected healthcare resource use. ConclusionThis exploratory analysis indicates that SC intervention for smokers with patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC should be a cost-effective use of UK National Health Service resources. Additional research with focused costing is needed to confirm this positioning.