Rapid testing for group B streptococcus during labour: a test accuracy study with evaluation of acceptability and cost-effectiveness

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and optical immunoassay (OIA) rapid tests for maternal group B streptococcal (GBS) colonisation at labour. DESIGN: A test accuracy study was used to determine the accuracy of rapid tests for GBS colonisation of women in labour. Acceptability of testing to participants was evaluated through a questionnaire administered after delivery, and acceptability to staff through focus groups. A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various screening strategies. SETTING: Two large obstetric units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women booked for delivery at the participating units other than those electing for a Caesarean delivery. INTERVENTIONS: Vaginal and rectal swabs were obtained at the onset of labour and the results of vaginal and rectal PCR and OIA (index) tests were compared with the reference standard of enriched culture of combined vaginal and rectal swabs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of the index tests, the relative accuracies of tests on vaginal and rectal swabs and whether test accuracy varied according to the presence or absence of maternal risk factors. RESULTS: PCR was significantly more accurate than OIA for the detection of maternal GBS colonisation. Combined vaginal or rectal swab index tests were more sensitive than either test considered individually [combined swab sensitivity for PCR 84% (95% CI 79-88%); vaginal swab 58% (52-64%); rectal swab 71% (66-76%)]. The highest sensitivity for PCR came at the cost of lower specificity [combined specificity 87% (95% CI 85-89%); vaginal swab 92% (90-94%); rectal swab 92% (90-93%)]. The sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests varied according to the presence or absence of maternal risk factors, but not consistently. PCR results were determinants of neonatal GBS colonisation, but maternal risk factors were not. Overall levels of acceptability for rapid testing amongst participants were high. Vaginal swabs were more acceptable than rectal swabs. South Asian women were least likely to have participated in the study and were less happy with the sampling procedure and with the prospect of rapid testing as part of routine care. Midwives were generally positive towards rapid testing but had concerns that it might lead to overtreatment and unnecessary interference in births. Modelling analysis revealed that the most cost-effective strategy was to provide routine intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) to all women without screening. Removing this strategy, which is unlikely to be acceptable to most women and midwives, resulted in screening, based on a culture test at 35-37 weeks' gestation, with the provision of antibiotics to all women who screened positive being most cost-effective, assuming that all women in premature labour would receive IAP. The results were sensitive to very small increases in costs and changes in other assumptions. Screening using a rapid test was not cost-effective based on its current sensitivity, specificity and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Neither rapid test was sufficiently accurate to recommend it for routine use in clinical practice. IAP directed by screening with enriched culture at 35-37 weeks' gestation is likely to be the most acceptable cost-effective strategy, although it is premature to suggest the implementation of this strategy at present.

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

Background - Menorrhagia is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about therapy is limited. In a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial, we compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS) with usual medical treatment in women with menorrhagia who presented to their primary care providers. Methods - We randomly assigned 571 women with menorrhagia to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity), assessed over a 2-year period. Secondary outcomes included general quality-of-life and sexual-activity scores and surgical intervention. Results - MMAS scores improved from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group (mean increase, 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The improvements were maintained over a 2-year period but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9 to 16.9; P<0.001). Improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, family life, work and daily routine, psychological well-being, and physical health) were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group, and this was also true for seven of the eight quality-of-life domains. At 2 years, more of the women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were undergoing the usual medical treatment (64% vs. 38%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Conclusions - In women with menorrhagia who presented to primary care providers, the levonorgestrel-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment in reducing the effect of heavy menstrual bleeding on quality of life. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ECLIPSE Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN86566246.)

Pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart defects in newborn infants: a test accuracy study with evaluation of acceptability and cost-effectiveness

Background: Screening for congenital heart defects (CHDs) relies on antenatal ultrasound and postnatal clinical examination; however, life-threatening defects often go undetected. Objective: To determine the accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry as a screening test for CHDs in newborn infants. Design: A test accuracy study determined the accuracy of pulse oximetry. Acceptability of testing to parents was evaluated through a questionnaire, and to staff through focus groups. A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess cost-effectiveness. Setting: Six UK maternity units. Participants: These were 20,055 asymptomatic newborns at = 35 weeks’ gestation, their mothers and health-care staff. Interventions: Pulse oximetry was performed prior to discharge from hospital and the results of this index test were compared with a composite reference standard (echocardiography, clinical follow-up and follow-up through interrogation of clinical databases). Main outcome measures: Detection of major CHDs – defined as causing death or requiring invasive intervention up to 12 months of age (subdivided into critical CHDs causing death or intervention before 28 days, and serious CHDs causing death or intervention between 1 and 12 months of age); acceptability of testing to parents and staff; and the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per timely diagnosis. Results: Fifty-three of the 20,055 babies screened had a major CHD (24 critical and 29 serious), a prevalence of 2.6 per 1000 live births. Pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.3% to 90.2%] for critical cases and 49.1% (95% CI 35.1% to 63.2%) for all major CHDs. When 23 cases were excluded, in which a CHD was already suspected following antenatal ultrasound, pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 58.3% (95% CI 27.7% to 84.8%) for critical cases (12 babies) and 28.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 46.3%) for all major CHDs (35 babies). False-positive (FP) results occurred in 1 in 119 babies (0.84%) without major CHDs (specificity 99.2%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.3%). However, of the 169 FPs, there were six cases of significant but not major CHDs and 40 cases of respiratory or infective illness requiring medical intervention. The prevalence of major CHDs in babies with normal pulse oximetry was 1.4 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.0) per 1000 live births, as 27 babies with major CHDs (6 critical and 21 serious) were missed. Parent and staff participants were predominantly satisfied with screening, perceiving it as an important test to detect ill babies. There was no evidence that mothers given FP results were more anxious after participating than those given true-negative results, although they were less satisfied with the test. White British/Irish mothers were more likely to participate in the study, and were less anxious and more satisfied than those of other ethnicities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pulse oximetry plus clinical examination compared with examination alone is approximately £24,900 per timely diagnosis in a population in which antenatal screening for CHDs already exists. Conclusions: Pulse oximetry is a simple, safe, feasible test that is acceptable to parents and staff and adds value to existing screening. It is likely to identify cases of critical CHDs that would otherwise go undetected. It is also likely to be cost-effective given current acceptable thresholds. The detection of other pathologies, such as significant CHDs and respiratory and infective illnesses, is an additional advantage. Other pulse oximetry techniques, such as perfusion index, may enhance detection of aortic obstructive lesions.

Improving the economic value of photographic screening for optical coherence tomography-detectable macular oedema:a prospective, multicentre, UK study

Objectives: To determine the best photographic surrogate markers for detecting sight-threatening macular oedema (MO) in people with diabetes attending UK national screening programmes. Design: A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of 3170 patients with photographic signs of diabetic retinopathy visible within the macular region [exudates within two disc diameters, microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages (M/DHs) and blot haemorrhages (BHs)] who were recruited from seven study centres. Setting: All patients were recruited and imaged at one of seven study centres in Aberdeen, Birmingham, Dundee, Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Oxford. Participants: Subjects with features of diabetic retinopathy visible within the macular region attending one of seven diabetic retinal screening programmes. Interventions: Alternative referral criteria for suspected MO based on photographic surrogate markers; an optical coherence tomographic examination in addition to the standard digital retinal photograph. Main outcome measures: (1) To determine the best method to detect sight-threatening MO in people with diabetes using photographic surrogate markers. (2) Sensitivity and specificity estimates to assess the costs and consequences of using alternative strategies. (3) Modelled long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Prevalence of MO was strongly related to the presence of lesions and was roughly five times higher in subjects with exudates or BHs or more than two M/DHs within one disc diameter. Having worse visual acuity was associated with about a fivefold higher prevalence of MO. Current manual screening grading schemes that ignore visual acuity or the presence of M/DHs could be improved by taking these into account. Health service costs increase substantially with more sensitive/less specific strategies. A fully automated strategy, using the automated detection of patterns of photographic surrogate markers, is superior to all current manual grading schemes for detecting MO in people with diabetes. The addition of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to each strategy, prior to referral, results in a reduction in costs to the health service with no decrement in the number of MO cases detected. Conclusions: Compared with all current manual grading schemes, for the same sensitivity, a fully automated strategy, using the automated detection of patterns of photographic surrogate markers, achieves a higher specificity for detecting MO in people with diabetes, especially if visual acuity is included in the automated strategy. Overall, costs to the health service are likely to increase if more sensitive referral strategies are adopted over more specific screening strategies for MO, for only very small gains in QALYs. The addition of OCT to each screening strategy, prior to referral, results in a reduction in costs to the health service with no decrement in the number of MO cases detected. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared to usual medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding:the ECLIPSE Trial

Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)

The feasibility of determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medication organisation devices compared with usual care for older people in a community setting : systematic review, stakeholder focus groups and feasibility randomised controlled trial

This project was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Systematic review of the health and societal effects of medication organisation devices

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank, Estelle Payerne (article screening, data extraction and bias assessment); Trish Boyton (article retrieval and screening) and Laura Cawley (search terms and title screening) for their invaluable help in conducting this systematic review. Funding The research was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? : A systematic review of long-term randomised controlled trials presenting data for men and women: The ROMEO project

Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.

Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? : A systematic review of long-term randomised controlled trials presenting data for men and women: The ROMEO project

Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.

Breast pumps as an incentive for breastfeeding : a mixed methods study of acceptability

Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.

Breast pumps as an incentive for breastfeeding : a mixed methods study of acceptability

Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.

Costs, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic repair for rotator cuff tears : economic evaluation alongside the UKUFF trial

FUNDING & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 05/47/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/054702 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Due to the confidential nature of the trial data supporting this publication not all of the data can be made accessible to other researchers. Please contact the UKUFF study principal investigator Andrew Carr (andrew.carr@ndorms.ox.ac.uk) for more information. The authors wish to thank the UKUFF trial collaborators for their contribution in managing the conduct of the trial, and for their comments on the interim economic results: Marion Campbell and Hannah Bruhn (Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, HSRU, University of Aberdeen), Jonathan Rees MD and David Beard (NDORMS, University of Oxford; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre), Jane Moser (NDORMS, University of Oxford), Raymond Fitzpatrick and Jill Dawson (NDPH, University of Oxford).

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study) : study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

The VUE study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 11/129/183).

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial : a randomised controlled trial

Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who agreed to take part in the trial. This study was supported NHS Research Scotland (NRS), through Chief Scientist Office (CSO) and the Scottish Mental Health Research Network, and the Clinical Research Network-Mental Health. We are grateful to the Psychosis Research Unit (PRU) Service User Reference Group (SURG) for their consultation regarding the design of the study and contribution to the developments of study related materials. We are grateful to our Independent Trial Steering Committee and Independent Data Monitoring Committee for provided oversight of the trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number10/101/02) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Visit the HTA programme website for further project information. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.