Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of a phase III international randomised controlled trial of very early mobilisation after stroke (AVERT).

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

While very early mobilisation (VEM) intervention for stroke patients was shown not to be effective at 3 months, 12 month clinical and economical outcomes remain unknown. The aim was to assess cost-effectiveness of a VEM intervention within a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Design

An economic evaluation alongside a RCT, and detailed resource use and cost analysis over 12 months post-acute stroke.

Setting

Multi-country RCT involved 58 stroke centres.

Participants

2104 patients with acute stroke who were admitted to a stroke unit.

Intervention

A very early rehabilitation intervention within 24 hours of stroke onset METHODS: Cost-utility analyses were undertaken according to pre-specified protocol measuring VEM against usual care (UC) based on 12 month outcomes. The analysis was conducted using both health sector and societal perspectives. Unit costs were sourced from participating countries. Details on resource use (both health and non-health) were sourced from cost case report form. Dichotomised modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores (0 to 2 vs 3 to 6) and quality adjusted-life years (QALYs) were used to compare the treatment effect of VEM and UC. The base case analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis and 95% CI for cost and QALYs were estimated by bootstrapping. Sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of base case results.

Results

VEM and UC groups were comparable in the quantity of resource use and cost of each component. There were no differences in the probability of achieving a favourable mRS outcome (0.030, 95% CI -0.022 to 0.082), QALYs (0.013, 95% CI -0.041 to 0.016) and cost (AUD1082, 95% CI -$2520 to $4685 from a health sector perspective or AUD102, 95% CI -$6907 to $7111, from a societal perspective including productivity cost). Sensitivity analysis achieved results with mostly overlapped CIs.

Conclusions

VEM and UC were associated with comparable costs, mRS outcome and QALY gains at 12 months. Compared with to UC, VEM is unlikely to be cost-effective. The long-term data collection during the trial also informed resource use and cost of care post-acute stroke across five participating countries.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12606000185561; Results.

SUBMITTER: Gao L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6537993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether extending initial prednisolone treatment from eight to 16 weeks in children with idiopathic steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome improves the pattern of disease relapse.DesignDouble blind, parallel group, phase III randomised placebo controlled trial, including a cost effectiveness analysis.Setting125 UK National Health Service district general hospitals and tertiary paediatric nephrology centres.Participants237 children aged 1-14 years with a first episode of steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome.InterventionsChildren were randomised to receive an extended 16 week course of prednisolone (total dose 3150 mg/m2) or a standard eight week course of prednisolone (total dose 2240 mg/m2). The drug was supplied as 5 mg tablets alongside matching placebo so that participants in both groups received the same number of tablets at any time point in the study. A minimisation algorithm ensured balanced treatment allocation by ethnicity (South Asian, white, or other) and age (5 years or less, 6 years or more).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was time to first relapse over a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcome measures were relapse rate, incidence of frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome and steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome, use of alternative immunosuppressive treatment, rates of adverse events, behavioural change using the Achenbach child behaviour checklist, quality adjusted life years, and cost effectiveness from a healthcare perspective. Analysis was by intention to treat.ResultsNo significant difference was found in time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.17, log rank P=0.28) or in the incidence of frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome (extended course 60/114 (53%) v standard course 55/109 (50%), P=0.75), steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome (48/114 (42%) v 48/109 (44%), P=0.77), or requirement for alternative immunosuppressive treatment (62/114 (54%) v 61/109 (56%), P=0.81). Total prednisolone dose after completion of the trial drug was 6674 mg for the extended course versus 5475 mg for the standard course (P=0.07). There were no statistically significant differences in serious adverse event rates (extended course 19/114 (17%) v standard course 27/109 (25%), P=0.13) or adverse event rates, with the exception of behaviour, which was poorer in the standard course group. Scores on the Achenbach child behaviour checklist did not, however, differ. Extended course treatment was associated with a mean increase in generic quality of life (0.0162 additional quality adjusted life years, 95% confidence interval -0.005 to 0.037) and cost savings (difference -£1673 ($2160; €1930), 95% confidence interval -£3455 to £109).ConclusionsClinical outcomes did not improve when the initial course of prednisolone treatment was extended from eight to 16 weeks in UK children with steroid sensitive nephrotic syndrome. However, evidence was found of a short term health economic benefit through reduced resource use and increased quality of life.Trial registrationISRCTN16645249; EudraCT 2010-022489-29.

Project description:IntroductionProximal femoral (hip) fracture is common, serious and costly. Rehabilitation may improve functional recovery but evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are lacking. An enhanced rehabilitation intervention was previously developed and a feasibility study tested the methods used for this randomised controlled trial (RCT). The objectives are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the enhanced rehabilitation programme following surgical repair of proximal femoral fracture in older people compared with usual care.Methods and analysisProtocol for phase III, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority, pragmatic RCT with 1:1 allocation ratio; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with a built-in random element; secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be usual care (control) and usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation programme (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation will consist of a patient-held information workbook, goal setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blind; patient and carer participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 17 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Primary outcome at 52 weeks will be the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcomes will measure anxiety and depression, health utility, cognitive status, hip pain intensity, falls self-efficacy, fear of falling, grip strength and physical function. Carer strain, anxiety and depression will be measured in carers. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events will be assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis from a health service and personal social care perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the enhanced rehabilitation programme.Ethics and disseminationNational Health Service research ethics approval reference 18/NE/0300. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN28376407; Pre-results registered on 23 November 2018.

Project description:ObjectiveInvestigated clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a person-centred intervention for informal carers/caregivers of stroke survivors.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with economic and process evaluation.SettingClusters were services, from a UK voluntary sector specialist provider, delivering support primarily in the homes of stroke survivors and informal carers.ParticipantsAdult carers in participating clusters were referred to the study by cluster staff following initial support contact.InterventionsIntervention was the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for Stroke: a staff-facilitated, carer-led approach to help identify, prioritise and address the specific support needs of carers. It required at least one face-to-face support contact dedicated to carers, with reviews as required. Control was usual care, which included carer support (unstructured and variable).Outcome measuresParticipants provided study entry and self-reported outcome data by postal questionnaires, 3 and 6 months after first contact by cluster staff.Primary outcome3-month caregiver strain (Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire, FACQ).Secondary outcomesFACQ subscales of caregiver distress and positive appraisals of caregiving, mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and satisfaction with stroke services (Pound). The economic evaluation included self-reported healthcare utilisation, intervention costs and EQ-5D-5L.Randomisation and maskingClusters were recruited before randomisation to intervention or control, with stratification for size of service. Cluster staff could not be masked as training was required for participation. Carer research participants provided self-reported outcome data unaware of allocation; they consented to follow-up data collection only.ResultsBetween 1 February 2017 and 31 July 2018, 35 randomised clusters (18 intervention; 17 control) recruited 414 cRCT carers (208 intervention; 206 control). Study entry characteristics were well balanced.Primary outcome measureintention-to-treat analysis for 84% retained participants (175 intervention; 174 control) found mean (SD) FACQ carer strain at 3 months to be 3.11 (0.87) in the control group compared with 3.03 (0.90) in the intervention group, adjusted mean difference of -0.04 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.13). Secondary outcomes had similarly small differences and tight CIs. Sensitivity analyses suggested robust findings. Intervention fidelity was not achieved. Intervention-related group costs were marginally higher with no additional health benefit observed on EQ-5D-5L. No adverse events were related to the intervention.ConclusionsThe intervention was not fully implemented in this pragmatic trial. As delivered, it conferred no clinical benefits and is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with usual care from a stroke specialist provider organisation. It remains unclear how best to support carers of stroke survivors. To overcome the implementation challenges of person-centred care in carers' research and service development, staff training and organisational support would need to be enhanced.Trial registration numberISRCTN58414120.

Project description:IntroductionIncisional hernia (IH) is the most frequent mid-term and long-term complication after midline laparotomy. The current standard treatment includes repair using a mesh. In a contaminated field, the use of a non-absorbable mesh increases the risk of surgical site infection and the costs. Slowly absorbable meshes are safe in contaminated fields, but no data have been reported regarding their long-term recurrence rate. COMpACT-BIO is a multicentre prospective randomised controlled phase III trial designed to compare the 3-year recurrence rate in patients undergoing contaminated IH repair with either a slowly absorbable mesh or standard care.MethodsIn patients undergoing midline IH repair in a contaminated surgical field (grade III of the modified Ventral Hernia Working Group classification), the COMpACT-BIO study compares the use of a slowly absorbable mesh with that of conventional care according to standardised surgical procedures (primary closure, non-absorbable synthetic mesh or biologic mesh, at the discretion of the surgeon). Randomisation is done during surgery before closure the fascia with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The choice of the slowly absorbable mesh is left to the criteria of each centre. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with scan-confirmed IH recurrence within 3 years after repair.Ethics/disseminationThis trial is conducted in compliance with international standards for research practice and reporting. Written informed consent will be obtained from patients prior to inclusion. All data were identified and anonymised prior to analysis. The protocol has been approved by an Institutional Review Board (2020-A0823-36/SI:20.07.03.66831), and will be conducted in compliance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.Protocol versionVersion 2-13 October 2020.Trial registration numberNCT04597840.