Dataset Information

The Cost Implications of Less Tight Versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy (CHIPS Trial).

ABSTRACT: The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) found no difference in the primary perinatal or secondary maternal outcomes between planned "less tight" (target diastolic 100 mm?Hg) and "tight" (target diastolic 85 mm?Hg) blood pressure management strategies among women with chronic or gestational hypertension. This study examined which of these management strategies is more or less costly from a third-party payer perspective. A total of 981 women with singleton pregnancies and nonsevere, nonproteinuric chronic or gestational hypertension were randomized at 14 to 33 weeks to less tight or tight control. Resources used were collected from 94 centers in 15 countries and costed as if the trial took place in each of 3 Canadian provinces as a cost-sensitivity analysis. Eleven hospital ward and 24 health service costs were obtained from a similar trial and provincial government health insurance schedules of medical benefits. The mean total cost per woman-infant dyad was higher in less tight versus tight control, but the difference in mean total cost (DM) was not statistically significant in any province: Ontario ($30?191.62 versus $24?469.06; DM $5723, 95% confidence interval, -$296 to $12?272; P=0.0725); British Columbia ($30?593.69 versus $24?776.51; DM $5817; 95% confidence interval, -$385 to $12?349; P=0.0725); or Alberta ($31?510.72 versus $25?510.49; DM $6000.23; 95% confidence interval, -$154 to $12?781; P=0.0637). Tight control may benefit women without increasing risk to neonates (as shown in the main CHIPS trial), without additional (and possibly lower) cost to the healthcare system.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01192412.

SUBMITTER: Ahmed RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5008043 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Cost Implications of Less Tight Versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy (CHIPS Trial).

Ahmed Rashid J RJ Gafni Amiram A Hutton Eileen K EK Hu Zheng Jing ZJ Pullenayegum Eleanor E von Dadelszen Peter P Rey Evelyne E Ross Susan S Asztalos Elizabeth E Murphy Kellie E KE Menzies Jennifer J Sanchez J Johanna JJ Ganzevoort Wessel W Helewa Michael M Lee Shoo K SK Lee Terry T Logan Alexander G AG Moutquin Jean-Marie JM Singer Joel J Thornton Jim G JG Welch Ross R Magee Laura A LA

Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 20160822 4

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>The CHIPS randomized controlled trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study) found no difference in the primary perinatal or secondary maternal outcomes between planned "less tight" (target diastolic 100 mm Hg) and "tight" (target diastolic 85 mm Hg) blood pressure management strategies among women with chronic or gestational hypertension. This study examined which of these management strategies is more or less costly from a third-party payer perspective. A total of 981 ...[more]

PMID: 27550914

Similar Datasets

Project description:To determine whether clinical outcomes differed by occurrence of severe hypertension in the international CHIPS trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study), adjusting for the interventions of "less tight" (target diastolic blood pressure [dBP] 100 mm?Hg) versus "tight" control (target dBP 85 mm?Hg). In this post-hoc analysis of CHIPS data from 987 women with nonsevere nonproteinuric preexisting or gestational hypertension, mixed effects logistic regression was used to compare the following outcomes according to occurrence of severe hypertension, adjusting for allocated group and the influence of baseline factors: CHIPS primary (perinatal loss or high-level neonatal care for >48 hours) and secondary outcomes (serious maternal complications), birth weight <10th percentile, preeclampsia, delivery at <34 or <37 weeks, platelets <100×109/L, elevated liver enzymes with symptoms, maternal length of stay ?10 days, and maternal readmission before 6 weeks postpartum. Three hundred and thirty-four (34.1%) women in CHIPS developed severe hypertension that was associated with all outcomes examined except for maternal readmission (P=0.20): CHIPS primary outcome, birth weight <10th percentile, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, elevated liver enzymes (all P<0.001), platelets <100×109/L (P=0.006), and prolonged hospital stay (P=0.03). The association between severe hypertension and serious maternal complications was seen only in less tight control (P=0.02). Adjustment for preeclampsia (464, 47.3%) did not negate the relationship between severe hypertension and the CHIPS primary outcome (P<0.001), birth weight <10th percentile (P=0.005), delivery at <37 (P<0.001) or <34 weeks (P<0.001), or elevated liver enzymes with symptoms (P=0.02). Severe hypertension is a risk marker for adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, independent of BP control or preeclampsia co-occurrence.URL: http://pre-empt.cfri.ca/. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 71416914. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01192412.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials commonly use multiple endpoints to measure the impact of an intervention. While this improves the comprehensiveness of outcomes, it can make trial results difficult to interpret. We examined the impact of integrating patient weights into a composite endpoint on the interpretation of Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) Trial results.MethodsOutcome weights were extracted from a previous patient preferences study in pregnancy hypertension (N = 183 women) which identified (i) seven outcomes most important to women (taking medication, severe hypertension, pre-eclampsia, blood transfusion, Caesarean, delivery < 34 weeks, and baby born smaller-than-expected) and (ii) three preference subgroups: (1) 'equal prioritizers', 62%; (2) 'early delivery avoiders', 23%; and (3) 'medication minimizers', 14%. Outcome weights from the preference subgroups were integrated with CHIPS data for the seven outcomes identified in the preference study. A weighted composite score was derived for each participant by multiplying the preference weight for each outcome by the binary outcome if it occurred. Analyses considered equal weights and those from the preference subgroups. The mean composite scores were compared between trial arms (t-tests).ResultsComposite scores were similar between trial arms with the use of equal weights or those of subgroup (1) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: - 0.03, 0.02; p > 0.50 for each). 'Tight' control was superior when using subgroup (2) weights (95% CIs: 0.002, 0.07; p = 0.03), and 'less-tight' control was superior when using subgroup (3) weights (95% CIs: - 0.11, - 0.04; p < 0.01).ConclusionsEvidence-based recommendations for 'tight' control are consistent with most women's preferences, but for a sixth of women, 'less-tight' control is more preference consistent. Depending on patient preferences, a single trial may support different interventions. Future trials should specify component weights to improve interpretation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01192412.

Project description:In some studies, tight glycemic control with insulin improved outcomes in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, but these benefits are unproven in critically ill children at risk for hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. We tested the hypothesis that tight glycemic control reduces morbidity after pediatric cardiac surgery.In this two-center, prospective, randomized trial, we enrolled 980 children, 0 to 36 months of age, undergoing surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomly assigned to either tight glycemic control (with the use of an insulin-dosing algorithm targeting a blood glucose level of 80 to 110 mg per deciliter [4.4 to 6.1 mmol per liter]) or standard care in the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU). Continuous glucose monitoring was used to guide the frequency of blood glucose measurement and to detect impending hypoglycemia. The primary outcome was the rate of health care-associated infections in the cardiac ICU. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay, organ failure, and hypoglycemia.A total of 444 of the 490 children assigned to tight glycemic control (91%) received insulin versus 9 of 490 children assigned to standard care (2%). Although normoglycemia was achieved earlier with tight glycemic control than with standard care (6 hours vs. 16 hours, P<0.001) and was maintained for a greater proportion of the critical illness period (50% vs. 33%, P<0.001), tight glycemic control was not associated with a significantly decreased rate of health care-associated infections (8.6 vs. 9.9 per 1000 patient-days, P=0.67). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, and tight glycemic control did not benefit high-risk subgroups. Only 3% of the patients assigned to tight glycemic control had severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose <40 mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]).Tight glycemic control can be achieved with a low hypoglycemia rate after cardiac surgery in children, but it does not significantly change the infection rate, mortality, length of stay, or measures of organ failure, as compared with standard care. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPECS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00443599.).

Project description:BackgroundCurrent Uganda National Malaria treatment guidelines recommend parasitological confirmation either by microscopy or rapid diagnostic test (RDT) before treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (AL). However, the cost-effectiveness of these strategies has not been assessed at rural operational primary care centres.MethodsThree health centres (HCs) were randomized to three diagnostic arms (microscopy, RDT and presumptive diagnosis) in a district of low and another of high malaria transmission intensities in Uganda. Some 22,052 patients presenting with fever at outpatients departments were enrolled from March 2010 to February 2011. Of these, a random sample of 1,627 was selected to measure additional socio-economic characteristics. Costing was performed following the standard step-down cost allocation and the ingredients approach. Effectiveness was measured as the number and proportion of patients correctly diagnosed and treated. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were estimated from the societal perspective (http://Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00565071).ResultsOverall RDT was most cost-effective with lowest ICER US$5.0 compared to microscopy US$9.61 per case correctly diagnosed and treated. In the high transmission setting, ICER was US$4.38 for RDT and US$12.98 for microscopy. The corresponding ICERs in the low transmission setting were US$5.85 and US$7.63 respectively. The difference in ICERs between RDT and microscopy was greater in the high transmission area (US$8.9) than in low transmission setting (US$1.78). At a willingness to pay of US$2.8, RDT remained cost effective up to a threshold value of the cost of treatment of US$4.7.ConclusionRDT was cost effective in both low and high transmission settings. With a global campaign to reduce the costs of AL and RDT, the Malaria Control Programme and stakeholders need a strategy for malaria diagnosis because as the cost of AL decreases, presumptive treatment is likely to become more attractive.

Dataset Information

The Cost Implications of Less Tight Versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy (CHIPS Trial).

Publications

The Cost Implications of Less Tight Versus Tight Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy (CHIPS Trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets