Graham Scotland

Background: Those experiencing homelessness and problem substance use find it challenging to access the healthcare and treatment they need. The Supporting Harm Reduction through Peer Support (SHARPS) feasibility study demonstrated that Peer Navigators can help these individuals to improve their service engagement, increase access to opioid substitution therapy, and lead to reductions in drug use and risky injection practices. Specifically, participants indicated that the lived experience of Peer Navigators was particularly helpful by enabling the development of trusting relationships. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) will now assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a Peer Navigator intervention with this population. Methods: A two-arm, pragmatic, cRCT will be conducted with embedded cost-effectiveness and mixed methods process evaluations. Individuals will be recruited who are as follows: over the age of 18 years; experiencing/at risk of homelessness and self-report problem substance use; and attending The Salvation Army (TSA) homelessness services across 20 included clusters (towns/cities). Each cluster will be randomised (1:1) to either the intervention or control arm using covariate-constrained allocation based on area-level characteristics. The target sample size is 550 participants in total. A co-produced peer-delivered harm reduction, relational intervention lasting 12 months will be delivered to those in the intervention arm. Usual care will be social care via TSA Support Workers delivered within homelessness services. The co-primary outcomes will be mental health and quality of life, with harmful substance use, risk taking behaviours, social functioning, physical health, social outcomes, housing status, therapeutic alliance/accessibility, service utilisation, and relational empathy chosen as secondary outcomes. Data collection points are baseline, 6 and 12 months, for all measures. The primary timepoint of interest is 12 months after baseline measurement. Economic outcomes will be incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and per year in full capability (YFC) gained with the intervention versus standard homelessness service care, inclusive of costs to the NHS, local government and criminal justice, and the third-sector host organisation. The EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A will be used to calculate QALYs and YFC respectively. We will also conduct a cost-consequence analysis. Discussion: The results of this trial will be used to inform whether the SHARPS intervention has a positive impact on those experiencing homelessness and problem substance use and if it is cost-effective to roll it out across social care services. Trial registration: ISRCTN11094645 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11094645 , registered April 5, 2024).

Aims: The LENS trial demonstrated that fenofibrate slowed the progression of diabetic retinopathy compared to placebo in participants with early diabetic eye disease. We assessed its cost‐effectiveness for reducing the progression of diabetic retinopathy versus standard care from a UK National Health Service perspective.Methods: Resource use and outcome data were collected over follow‐up for participants enrolled in LENS. Mean costs were compared at 2 years and per 6‐month follow‐up (median 4.0 years). Within the trial, cost‐effectiveness was assessed in terms of the incremental cost per case of referable disease averted. A microsimulation model, with inputs derived primarily from LENS trial data, was used to assess the incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY).Results: Fenofibrate resulted in a mean (95% confidence interval) reduction in health service costs of ‐£254 (−1062 to 624) at 2 years and ‐£101 (−243 to 42) per 6‐month follow‐up. This was accompanied by a 4.4% (1.3% to 8.0%) absolute reduction in any referable diabetic retinopathy or treatment thereof at 2 years, and a 27% (9%–42%) relative reduction over follow‐up. Modelled over 10 years, fenofibrate use cost an additional £6 per patient for an expected QALY gain of 0.02, costing £406 per QALY versus standard care under base case assumptions. The probability of cost‐effectiveness varied from 70% to 79% at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, depending on the price discount applied to anti‐VEGF drugs.Conclusions: Fenofibrate is likely to offer a cost‐effective treatment for slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy in people with early to moderate diabetic retinopathy or maculopathy.

Objectives Do weekly prophylactic saline or acidic catheter washouts in addition to standard long-term catheter (LTC) care improve the outcomes of adults with LTC compared with standard LTC care only. Design Three-arm superiority open-label randomised controlled trial. Setting UK community-based study. Participants 80 adults with LTC (any type/route) ≥28 days in situ with no plans to discontinue and able to self-manage the washouts/study documentation with/without a carer. Interventions Randomly allocated (26:27:27) to receive standard LTC care with weekly saline or weekly acidic or no prophylactic washouts for up to 24 months. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was catheter blockage requiring intervention (per 1000 catheter days). Secondary outcomes were symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection (S-CAUTI) requiring antibiotics, adverse events, participants’ quality of life and day-to-day activities, acceptability and adherence. Results Outcomes reported for 25 saline, 27 acidic and 26 control participants. LTC blockages (per 1000 catheter days) requiring treatment were 9.96, 10.53 and 20.92 in the saline, acidic and control groups, respectively. The incident rate ratio (IRR) favours the washout groups (saline 0.65 (97.5% CI 0.24 to 1.77); p=0.33 and acidic 0.59 (97.5% CI 0.22 to 1.63); p=0.25), although not statistically significant. The S-CAUTI rate (per 1000 catheter days) was 3.71, 6.72 and 8.05 in the saline, acidic and control groups, respectively. The IRR favours the saline group (saline 0.40 (97.5% CI 0.20 to 0.80); p=0.003 and acidic 0.98 (97.5% CI 0.54 to 1.78); p=0.93). The trial closed before reaching target recruitment due to reduced research capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Early closure and small sample size limits our ability to provide a definite answer. However, the observed non-statistically significant differences over control are favourable for lower rates of LTC blockages without a concomitant rise in S-CAUTI. The results support a multinational randomised controlled trial of catheter washouts in patients with LTC to ascertain their clinical and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration number ISRCTN17116445.

Objective To estimate the cost of paediatric asthma from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective and explore determinants of these costs. Design Cost analysis based on data from a large clinical trial between 2017 and 2019. Case report forms recorded healthcare resource use and productivity losses attributable to asthma over a 12-month period. These were combined with national unit cost data to generate estimates of health service and indirect costs. Setting Asthma clinics in primary and secondary care in England and Scotland. Main outcome measures Cost per asthma attack stratified by highest level of care received. Total annual health service and indirect costs. Modelled effect of sex, age, severity, number of attacks and adherence on total annual costs. Results Of 506 children included in the analysis, 252 experienced at least one attack. The mean (SD) cost per attack was £297 (806) (median £46, IQR 40–138) and the mean total annual cost to the NHS was £1086 (2504) (median £462, IQR 296–731). On average, children missed 6 days of school and their carers missed 13 hours of paid work, contributing to a mean annual indirect cost of £412 (879) (median £30, IQR 0–477). Health service costs increased significantly with number of attacks and participant age (>11 years). Indirect costs increased with asthma severity and number of attacks but were found to be lower in older children. Conclusions Paediatric asthma imparts a significant economic burden on the health service, families and society. Efforts to improve asthma control may generate significant cost savings. Trial registration number ISRCTN 67875351.

Introduction Several diagnostic tests are often adopted into diagnostic pathways for specific indications without strong evidence to support their use. In this context, real-world prospective cohort studies in combination with decision modelling can generate evidence to support decision-making. The Early Detection of neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (EDNA) study was a prospective cohort designed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of several diagnostic monitoring tests used in routine practice for the detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in the second eye of patients being treated for unilateral disease. Methods Five-hundred and fifty-two participants with newly diagnosed unilateral nAMD were monitored for up to 3 years in 24 UK eye clinics. The diagnostic monitoring performance of five index tests was compared: self-reported change in visual function, Amsler test, clinic measured change in visual acuity, fundus assessment by clinical examination or colour photography, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). The reference standard was fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA). A patient-level state transition model was used to simulate the onset of nAMD in the second eye, and assess the impact of different tests on the timing of detection and treatment, and associated costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 25-year time-horizon. Results One hundred and forty-five (26.3%) patients developed active nAMD in the study eye, of whom 120 had an FFA at detection. SD-OCT had the highest sensitivity (91.7 percent (95% CI: 85.2-95.6) and provided high specificity (87.8% (95% CI: 83.8-90.9)). It generated more QALYs and lower health and personal social care costs compared to all other monitoring tests. The combination of SD-OCT with fundus-examination provided a marginal increase in sensitivity over OCT alone, but the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was >GBP 100,000 per QALY. Conclusions The efficiency of diagnostic pathways for nAMD may be improved by using SD-OCT alone to monitor the second eye of people being treated for unilateral disease. Prospective cohort studies embedded into routine practice offer value for informing decisions surrounding the use of technologies already in routine use.

Background: The role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide in guiding asthma treatment in children is uncertain.Objective: To compare treatment guided by both fractional exhaled nitric oxide and symptoms (intervention) with treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) in children with asthma who are at risk of an asthma exacerbation, in terms of the number of asthma exacerbations over 12 months.Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with embedded cost-effectiveness and qualitative process evaluations. Randomisation (1 : 1) was carried out using a remote web-based system and was minimised on recruitment centre, age, sex and British Thoracic Society treatment step. Clinical teams and participants were not blind to treatment allocation.Setting: The trial took place in 35 hospitals and seven primary care practices in the UK.Participants: Children aged 6–15 years with a diagnosis of asthma who were currently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids and who had one or more parent-/patient-reported asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months prior to recruitment.Interventions: Asthma treatment guided by symptoms alone (standard care) and asthma treatment guided by symptoms plus fractional exhaled nitric oxide (intervention). Treatment recommendations in both groups were protocolised within a web-based algorithm, incorporating inhaled corticosteroid adherence (objectively measured using an electronic logging device) and current treatment.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was asthma exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids in the year post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included time to first exacerbation, number of exacerbations, lung function, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, daily dose of inhaled corticosteroid, asthma control and quality of life.Results: In total, 509 eligible participants were recruited and the primary outcome was available for 506 participants. The primary outcome occurred in 123 out of 255 (48.2%) participants in the intervention group and 129 out of 251 (51.4%) participants in the standard-care group (adjusted odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.27). There was algorithm non-compliance on 21% of assessments. Per-protocol and complier-average causal effect analysis did not change the interpretation. This non-statistically significant estimate was consistent across predefined subgroups. There were no differences between the groups in secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. No meaningful differences in health service costs, direct patient costs or indirect costs to society were identified between the groups. The economic evaluation does not provide evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. In the qualitative process evaluation, 15 trial staff and six families were interviewed. Overall, their experiences were positive. The intervention was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the algorithm recommendation as a guide and wariness around extreme step ups/downs in treatment in the light of contextual factors not being taken into account by the algorithm.Limitations: Potential limitations included the choice of cut-off point to define uncontrolled asthma and the change in fractional exhaled nitric oxide to trigger a change in treatment. Furthermore, the treatment decisions in the two groups may not have been sufficiently different to create a difference in outcomes.Conclusions: The RAACENO (Reducing Asthma Attacks in Children using Exhaled Nitric Oxide) trial findings do not support the routine use of fractional exhaled nitric oxide measurements as part of asthma management in a secondary care setting. The potential for other objective markers to guide asthma management in children needs to be evaluated.Trial registration: This trial was registered as ISRCTN67875351.Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full inEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. Objective: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. Participants: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. Interventions: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). Outcomes: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State–Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. Results: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval –2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval –2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. Limitations: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. Conclusion: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Convulsive status epilepticus is defined as ≥ 5 minutes of either continuous seizure activity or repetitive seizures without regaining consciousness. It is regarded as an emergency condition that requires prompt treatment to avoid hospitalisation and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Rapid pre-hospital first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus is currently benzodiazepines, administered either by trained caregivers in the community (e.g. buccal midazolam, rectal diazepam) or by trained health professionals via intramuscular or intravenous routes (e.g. midazolam, lorazepam). There is a lack of clarity about the optimal treatment for convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. Objectives: To assess the current evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for adults with convulsive status epilepticus in the pre-hospital setting. Data sources: We searched major electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo^®, CINAHL, CENTRAL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, Research Papers in Economics, and the ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database, with no restrictions on publication date or language of publication. Final searches were carried out on 21 July 2020. Review methods: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing adults with convulsive status epilepticus who received treatment before or on arrival at the emergency department. Eligible treatments were any antiepileptic drugs offered as first-line treatments, regardless of their route of administration. Primary outcomes were seizure cessation, seizure recurrence and adverse events. Two reviewers independently screened all citations identified by the search strategy, retrieved full-text articles, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Results were described narratively. Results: Four trials (1345 randomised participants, of whom 1234 were adults) assessed the intravenous or intramuscular use of benzodiazepines or other antiepileptic drugs for the pre-hospital treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in adults. Three trials at a low risk of bias showed that benzodiazepines were effective in stopping seizures. In particular, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. The addition of levetiracetam to clonazepam did not show clear advantages over clonazepam alone. One trial at a high risk of bias showed that phenobarbital plus optional phenytoin was more effective in terminating seizures than diazepam plus phenytoin. The median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 1.6 minutes to 15 minutes. The proportion of people with recurrence of seizures ranged from 10.4% to 19.1% in two trials reporting this outcome. Across trials, the rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments were generally low (from 6.4% to 10.6%). The mortality rate ranged from 2% to 7.6% in active treatment groups and from 6.2% to 15.5% in control groups. Only one study based on retrospective observational data met the criteria for economic evaluation; therefore, it was not possible to draw any robust conclusions on cost-effectiveness. Limitations: The limited number of identified trials and their differences in terms of treatment comparisons and outcomes hindered any meaningful pooling of data. None of the included trials was conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam. The review of economic evaluations was hampered by lack of suitable data. Conclusions: Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics are more effective than a placebo in the treatments of adults with convulsive status epilepticus, and intramuscular midazolam is non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Large well-designed clinical trials are needed to establish which benzodiazepines are more effective and preferable in the pre-hospital setting. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020201953. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Acute kidney injury is a serious complication that occurs in the context of an acute critical illness or during a postoperative period. Earlier detection of acute kidney injury may facilitate strategies to preserve renal function, prevent further disease progression and reduce mortality. Acute kidney injury diagnosis relies on a rise in serum creatinine levels and/or fall in urine output; however, creatinine is an imperfect marker of kidney function. There is interest in the performance of novel biomarkers used in conjunction with existing clinical assessment, such as NephroCheck^® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), ARCHITECT^® urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), and urine and plasma BioPorto NGAL (BioPorto Diagnostics A/S, Hellerup, Denmark) immunoassays. If reliable, these biomarkers may enable earlier identification of acute kidney injury and enhance management of those with a modifiable disease course. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the role of biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury in critically ill patients who are considered for admission to critical care. Data sources: Major electronic databases, conference abstracts and ongoing studies were searched up to June 2019, with no date restrictions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, EU Clinical Trials Register, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the performance of novel biomarkers for the detection of acute kidney injury and prediction of other relevant clinical outcomes. Random-effects models were adopted to combine evidence. A decision tree was developed to evaluate costs and quality-adjusted life-years accrued as a result of changes in short-term outcomes (up to 90 days), and a Markov model was used to extrapolate results over a lifetime time horizon. Results: A total of 56 studies (17,967 participants), mainly prospective cohort studies, were selected for inclusion. No studies addressing the clinical impact of the use of biomarkers on patient outcomes, compared with standard care, were identified. The main sources of bias across studies were a lack of information on blinding and the optimal threshold for NGAL. For prediction studies, the reporting of statistical details was limited. Although the meta-analyses results showed the potential ability of these biomarkers to detect and predict acute kidney injury, there were limited data to establish any causal link with longer-term health outcomes and there were considerable clinical differences across studies. Cost-effectiveness results were highly uncertain, largely speculative and should be interpreted with caution in the light of the limited evidence base. To illustrate the current uncertainty, 15 scenario analyses were undertaken. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very low across all scenarios, ranging from positive to negative increments. Incremental costs were also small, in general, with some scenarios generating cost savings with tests dominant over standard care (cost savings with quality-adjusted life-year gains). However, other scenarios generated results whereby the candidate tests were more costly with fewer quality-adjusted life-years, and were thus dominated by standard care. Therefore, it was not possible to determine a plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the tests, compared with standard care. Limitations: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results were hampered by the considerable heterogeneity across identified studies. Economic model predictions should also be interpreted cautiously because of the unknown impact of NGAL-guided treatment, and uncertain causal links between changes in acute kidney injury status and changes in health outcomes. Conclusions: Current evidence is insufficient to make a full appraisal of the role and economic value of these biomarkers and to determine whether or not they provide cost-effective improvements in the clinical outcomes of acute kidney injury patients. Future work: Future studies should evaluate the targeted use of biomarkers among specific patient populations and the clinical impact of their routine use on patient outcomes and management. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147039. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.