Cost-effectiveness analysis of voice rehabilitation for patients with laryngeal cancer: a randomized controlled study

Do Effects of Voice Rehabilitation in Patients Irradiated for Laryngeal Cancer Remain 5 Years Postradiotherapy?

PURPOSE

Laryngeal cancer treated by radiotherapy results in many patients being left with an abnormal voice long-term. This prospective study aims to report efficacy of voice rehabilitation 5years postradiotherapy completion.

METHODS

Seventy-seven patients were randomized into an intervention group (n = 37) or a control group (n = 40). Voice rehabilitation was administered postradiotherapy. Patients were followed at baseline, 12- and 60-month postradiotherapy with voice recordings assessed using GRBAS protocol (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain). Patients filled in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Head and Neck 35 (EORTC QLQ-HN35) and the Swedish Self-Evaluation of Communication Experiences after Laryngeal Cancer (S-SECEL).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control group in scores reported on EORTC QLQ-HN35, S-SECEL or in perceptual evaluation at study end-point. The intervention group reported an improvement in EORTC QLQ-HN35 Speech between baseline-60months postradiotherapy. No significant changes between 12-60months were observed. The control group demonstrated significant improvement in domains Pain, Senses, Speech, Social eating and Sexuality from baseline-60months postradiotherapy, of which only Speech showed a statistically significant change between 12-60months postradiotherapy (P = 0.02). Both groups reported improved S-SECEL scores from baseline-60months, with no significant dynamic between the 12- and 60-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Previously observed positive effects of voice rehabilitation on patient communicative skills and perceptual evaluation are no longer noticeable at 5-year post voice therapy completion. Nevertheless, patients receiving voice rehabilitation experience a greater improvement within the first year, which in the control group takes a corresponding 5years.

Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer

BACKGROUND

People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: a review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China

Introduction

Productivity loss may contribute to a large proportion of costs of health conditions in an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, but there is currently a lack of methodological consensus on how productivity loss should be measured and valued. Despite the research progress surrounding this issue in other countries, it has been rarely discussed in China.

Methods

We reviewed the official guidelines on economic evaluations in different countries and regions and screened the literature to summarise the extent to which productivity loss was incorporated in economic evaluations and the underlying methodological challenges.

Results

A total of 48 guidelines from 46 countries/regions were included. Although 32 (67%) guidelines recommend excluding productivity loss in the base case analysis, 23 (48%) guidelines recommend including productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses. Through a review of systematic reviews and the economic evaluation studies included in these reviews, we found that the average probability of incorporating productivity loss in an economic evaluation was 10.2%. Among the economic evaluations (n=478) that explicitly considered productivity loss, most (n=455) considered losses from paid work, while only a few studies (n=23) considered unpaid work losses. Recognising the existing methodological challenges and the specific context of China, we proposed a practical research agenda and a disease list for progress on this topic, including the development of the disease list comprehensively consisting of health conditions where the productivity loss should be incorporated into economic evaluations.

Conclusion

An increasing number of guidelines recommend the inclusion of productivity loss in the base case or additional analyses of economic evaluation. We optimistically expect that more Chinese researchers notice the importance of incorporating productivity loss in economic evaluations and anticipate guidelines that may be suitable for Chinese practitioners and decision-makers that facilitate the advancement of research on productivity loss measurement and valuation.

State of Rehabilitation Research in the Head and Neck Cancer Population: Functional Impact vs. Impairment-Focused Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of head and neck cancer (HNC) typically involves a morbid combination of surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy. As the number of HNC survivors grows, there is growing interest in rehabilitation strategies to manage HNC-related comorbidity. In this review, we summarize the current state of HNC rehabilitation research.

RECENT FINDINGS

We have organized our review using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Function (ICF) model of impairment, activity, and participation. Specifically, we describe the current research on rehabilitation strategies to prevent and treat impairments including dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, dysosmia, odynophagia, trismus, first bite syndrome, dysarthria, dysphonia, lymphedema, shoulder syndrome, cervicalgia, cervical dystonia and dropped head syndrome, deconditioning, and fatigue. We also discuss the broader impact of HNC-related impairment by exploring the state of rehabilitation literature on activity, participation, psychosocial distress, and suicidality in HNC survivors. We demonstrate that research in HNC rehabilitation continues to focus primarily on impairment-driven interventions. There remains a dearth of HNC rehabilitation studies directly examining the impact of rehabilitation interventions on outcomes related to activity and participation. More high-quality interventional studies and reviews are needed to guide prevention and treatment of functional loss in HNC survivors.

Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a guided self-help head and neck exercise program for patients treated with total laryngectomy: Results of a multi-center randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The guided self-help exercise program called In Tune without Cords (ITwC) is effective in improving swallowing problems and communication among patients treated with a total laryngectomy (TL). This study investigated the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of ITwC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients within 5 years after TL were included in this randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group (n = 46) received access to the self-help exercise program with flexibility, range-of-motion and lymphedema exercises, and a self-care education program. Patients in the control group (n = 46) received access to the self-care education program only. Healthcare utilization (iMCQ), productivity losses (iPCQ), health status (EQ-5D-3L, EORTC QLU-C10D) and swallowing problems (SwalQol) were measured at baseline, 3- and 6-months follow-up. Hospital costs were extracted from medical files. Mean total costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or SwalQol score) were compared with regression analyses using bias-corrected accelerated bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Mean total costs were non-significantly lower (-€685) and QALYs were significantly higher (+0.06) in the intervention compared to the control group. The probability that the intervention is less costly and more effective was 73%. Sensitivity analyses with adjustment for baseline costs and EQ-5D scores showed non-significantly higher costs (+€119 to +€364) and QALYs (+0.02 to +0.03). A sensitivity analysis using the QLU-C10D to calculate QALYs showed higher costs (+€741) and lower QALYs (-0.01) and an analysis that used the SwalQol showed higher costs (+€232) and higher effects (improvement of 6 points on a 0-100 scale).

CONCLUSION

ITwC is likely to be effective, but possibly at higher expenses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR5255.