Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this multicenter, randomized trial comparing cemented with modern uncemented hemiarthroplasty in persons 60 years of age or older with an intracapsular hip fracture, cemented hemiarthroplasty resulted in a modestly but significantly better quality of life and a lower risk of periprosthetic fracture than uncemented hemiarthroplasty.

Background Diabetes not only imposes a huge health burden but also a large economic burden worldwide. In the working-age population, cost of lost productivity can far exceed diabetes-related medical cost. In this study, we aimed to estimate the current and future indirect and excess direct costs of diagnosed type 2 diabetes among the working-age population in Singapore. Methods A previously-published epidemiological model of diabetes was adapted to forecast prevalence among working-age patients with diagnosed type 2 diabetes in the absence of interventions. The current methodology of the American Diabetes Association was adopted to estimate the costs of diabetes for this population. Diabetes-related excess direct medical costs were obtained from a local cost study while indirect costs were calculated using the human capital approach applied to local labor force statistics. These cost were estimated conservatively from a societal perspective on a per patient basis and projected to the overall Singapore population from 2010 to 2050. Results In 2010, total economic costs per working-age patient were estimated to be US$5,646 (US$4,432-US$10,612), of which 42 % were excess direct medical costs and 58 % indirect productivity-related losses. Total cost is projected to rise to US$7,791 (US$5,741-US$12,756) in 2050, with the share of indirect costs rising to 65 %. Simultaneous increases in prevalence imply that the total economic costs of diabetes for the entire working-age population will increase by 2.4 fold from US$787 million in 2010 to US$1,867 million in 2050. Conclusions By current projections, diabetes in Singapore represents a growing economic burden. Among the working-age population, the impact of productivity loss will become increasingly significant. Prevention efforts to reduce overall prevalence should also engage stakeholders outside the health sector who ultimately bear the indirect burden of disease.

In Singapore, as diabetes is an increasingly important public health issue, the cost-effectiveness of pursuing lifestyle modification programs and/or alternative prevention strategies is of critical importance for policymakers. While the US Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) compared weight loss through lifestyle modification with oral treatment of diabetes drug metformin to prevent/delay the onset of type 2 diabetes in pre-diabetic subjects, no data on either the actual or potential cost effectiveness of such a program is available for East or South-east Asian populations. This study estimates the 3-year cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modification and metformin among pre-diabetic subjects from a Singapore health system and societal perspective. Cost effectiveness was analysed from 2010-2012 using a decision-based model to estimate the rates of getting diabetes, healthcare costs and health-related quality of life. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated using costs relevant to the time horizon of the study from Singapore. All costs are expressed in 2012 US dollars. The total economic cost for non-diabetic subjects from the societal perspective was US$25,867, US$28,108 and US$26,177 for placebo, lifestyle modification and metformin intervention respectively. For diabetic patients, the total economic cost from the societal perspective was US$32,921, US$35,163 and US$33,232 for placebo, lifestyle modification and metformin intervention respectively. Lifestyle modification relative to placebo is likely to be associated with an incremental cost per QALY gained at US$36,663 while that of metformin intervention is likely to be US$6,367 from a societal perspective. Based on adaptation of the DPP data to local conditions, both lifestyle modification and metformin intervention are likely to be cost-effective and worth implementing in Singapore to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. However, the cost of lifestyle modification from the societal perspective would have to be reduced in order to match the cost-effectiveness of metformin intervention.

IntroductionComplex organisational arrangements are required to deliver antenatal and newborn screening programmes. Decision-makers consider the benefits and harms of screening when reviewing the evidence about these programmes. Economic evaluations contribute one important part of this assessment process. However, it is not fully understood what approaches health economic assessments have adopted to measure and value benefits and harms. This study aims to systematically review and critique the published and grey literature on methods for identifying, measuring and valuing the benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening adopted by health economic assessments.Methods and analysisNine bibliographic databases will be searched from 2000 onwards. These search strategies will be supplemented by manual reference searching of bibliographies, forward citation searching, contacts with experts, author searching and web searching for grey literature. Studies will be selected for review if they report health economic assessments of an antenatal or newborn screening programme. Assessments of title and abstracts and full reports will be undertaken independently with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction will include fields to assess the reporting quality of the studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and a bespoke ancillary form to assess how benefits and harms have been accounted for.Ethics and disseminationThis is an evidence synthesis review from already published materials and hence ethics committee approval or written informed consent will not be required. Our results will be disseminated by publishing in high-impact peer-review journals and presenting at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165236.

IntroductionThere is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.Methods and analysisPANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Background Nail bed trauma is one of the most common surgically treated paediatric hand injuries in the UK. Despite surgeons generally expressing a preference to replace the nail plate after repairing the nail bed, there is limited evidence to support this practice. We describe a statistical and health economic analysis plan (SHEAP) for the Nail bed INJury Analysis (NINJA) randomised controlled trial. Methods/design NINJA is a multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, parallel group randomised controlled trial of the treatment of nail bed injury in participants 16 years old or younger. The study aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of replacing the nail plate compared to discarding it following the repair of a nail bed injury. Surgical site infection at 7–10 days post-randomisation and cosmetic appearance of the nail are the co-primary outcomes for NINJA. Surgical site infection at 7–10 days post-randomisation will be evaluated using a logistic regression model adjusting for site as the sole stratification factor and allowing for intra-site correlation. Cosmetic appearance will be assessed via the newly developed Oxford Finger Nail Appearance Score and will be evaluated by use of a Mann-Whitney U test. An ordinal logistic regression model will also be used to assess the Oxford Finger Nail Appearance Score, adjusting for site and allowing for intra-site correlation. Secondary outcomes are measured at 7–10 days and 4 months and include the EQ-5D-Y questionnaire, pain at first dressing change, cost-effectiveness, late surgical site infection, and participant/parent satisfaction with nail healing. Missing primary outcome data will be summarised by treatment arm and investigated through a sensitivity analysis. Full details of the planned methods of analysis and descriptive statistics are described in this paper. The NINJA study protocol has been published previously. Discussion The planned analysis strategy for the NINJA trial has been set out here to reduce the risk of reporting bias and data-driven analysis. Any deviations from the SHEAP described in this paper will be detailed and justified fully in the final report of the trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN44551796 . Registered on 23 April 2018.

IntroductionTrauma to the nail bed is the most common surgically treated paediatric hand injury. The majority of surgeons replace the nail plate after repairing the nail bed despite a lack of evidence to do so. Replacing the nail plate may be associated with increased postoperative infection. We will investigate the impact of replacing or discarding the nail plate on infection, cosmetic appearance, pain and subsequent healthcare use. The Nail bed INJury Analysis trial (NINJA) aims to answer the question of whether the nail plate should be replaced or discarded after surgical nail bed repair in children.Methods and analysisA two-arm parallel group open multicentre randomised control trial of replacing the nail plate or not, as part of a nail bed repair, will be undertaken in children presenting within 48 hours of a nail bed injury requiring surgical repair. The coprimary outcomes are: cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months and surgical site infection at around 7 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes are EuroQol EQ-5D-(Y); the pain intensity experienced at first dressing change; child/parent satisfaction with nail healing and healthcare resource use. We will recruit a minimum of 416 patients (208 in each group) over 3 years. Children and their parents/carers will be reviewed in clinic around 7 days after their operation and will be assessed for surgical site infection or other problems. The children, or depending on age, their parents/carers, will also be asked to complete a questionnaire and send in photos of their fingernail at a minimum of 4 months postsurgery to assess cosmetic appearance.Ethics and disseminationThe South Central Research Ethics Committee approved this study on 4 June 2019 (18/SC/0024). A manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal will be submitted on completion of the trial as per National Institute for Health Research publication policy. The results of this trial will substantially inform clinical practice and provide evidence on whether the practice of replacing the nail plate should continue at the time of nail bed repair.Trial registration numberISRCTN44551796.

The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2827-1.

IntroductionWhile total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) successfully reduce pain associated with chronic joint pathology, this infrequently translates into increased physical activity. This is a challenge given that over 50% of individuals who undergo these operations are physically inactive and have medical comorbidities such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and depression. The impact of these diseases can be reduced with physical activity. This trial aims to investigate the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention to increase physical activity compared with usual rehabilitation after THR or TKR.Methods and analysisThe PEP-TALK trial is a multicentre, open-labelled, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. 260 adults who are scheduled to undergo a primary unilateral THR or TKR and are moderately inactive or inactive, with comorbidities, will be recruited across eight sites in England. They will be randomised post-surgery, prior to hospital discharge, to either six, 30 min weekly group-based exercise sessions (control), or the same six weekly, group-based, exercise sessions each preceded by a 30 min cognitive behaviour approach discussion group. Participants will be followed-up to 12 months by postal questionnaire. The primary outcome is the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Physical Activity Score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include: physical function, disability, health-related quality of life, kinesiophobia, perceived pain, self-efficacy and health resource utilisation.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics committee approval was granted by the NRES Committee South Central (Oxford B - 18/SC/0423). Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed, scientific journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN29770908.

Dupuytren’s disease (DD) is a common fibroproliferative condition of the palmar and digital fascia of the hand; however, there is currently no approved treatment for early stage DD. The objective of this paper is to describe the methods applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab injections compared to placebo for controlling the progression of early stage DD in the Repurposing Anti-TNF for Treating Dupuytren’s Disease (RIDD) trial. Measure of effectiveness and resource use will be obtained from a randomised clinical trial, carried out in three healthcare centres, and recruiting a minimum of 138 patients aged 18 years and above with a diagnosis of early stage DD. Resource use and utility measures (quality-adjusted life years) will be collected at 3, 6, 9, 12 (primary outcome endpoint) and 18 months post-randomisation. A within-trial cost-utility analysis (CUA) will be conducted at 12 months and if the intervention is effective, a decision analytic model will be applied to estimate the lifetime effectiveness and costs. The analysis will be performed from a health system (National Health Service and personal social services) perspective. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RIDD is the first randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation conducted among patients with early stage DD. The protocol described here records our intent to conduct both a within-trial CUA alongside the RIDD study and a lifetime CUA using decision-analytic modelling.