Health Economic Evaluation Alongside Stepped Wedge Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review

Is a preoperative multidisciplinary team meeting (cost)effective to improve outcome for high-risk adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: the PREPARATION study-a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

As a result of increased life expectancy and improved care for patients suffering from chronic disease, the number of patients with multimorbidity requiring surgical intervention is increasing. For complex surgical patients, it is essential to balance the potential benefits of surgical treatment against the risk of permanent loss of functional capacity and quality of life due to complications. European and US guidelines on perioperative care recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients. However, the evidence underlying benefits from preoperative MDT meetings with all relevant perioperative specialties present is limited. The current study aims to investigate the effect of implementation of preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery on serious adverse events.

METHODS/DESIGN

PREPARATION is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 14 Dutch hospitals without currently established preoperative MDT meeting. The intervention, preoperative MDT meetings, will be implemented sequentially with seven blocks of 2 hospitals switching from control (preoperative screening as usual) to the intervention every 3 months. Each hospital will be randomized to one of seven blocks. We aim to include 1200 patients. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include (cost)effectiveness, functional outcome, and quality of life for up to 12 months.

DISCUSSION

PREPARATION is the first study to assess the effectiveness of a preoperative MDT meeting for high-risk noncardiac surgical patients in the presence of an anesthesiologist. If the results suggest that preoperative MDT discussions for high-risk patients are (cost)-effective, the current study facilitates implementation of preoperative MDT meetings in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05703230. Registered on 11/09/2022.

Frailty in older people: Rehabilitation Treatment Research Examining Separate Settings (FORTRESS): protocol for a hybrid type II stepped wedge, cluster, randomised trial

Background

Frailty in older people is associated with increased risk of falls, longer length of stay in hospital, increased risk of institutionalisation and death. Frailty can be measured using validated tools. Multi-component frailty interventions are recommended in clinical practice guidelines but are not routinely implemented in clinical practice.

Methods

The Frailty in Older people: Rehabilitation, Treatment, Research Examining Separate Settings (FORTRESS) trial is a multisite, hybrid type II, stepped wedge, cluster, randomised trial with blinded assessment and intention-to-treat analysis being conducted in Australia. The study aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an embedded individualised multicomponent frailty intervention (commencing in hospital and continuing in the community) on readmissions, frailty and quality of life when compared with usual care. Frail older people admitted to study wards with no significant cognitive impairment, who are expected to return home after discharge, will be eligible to participate. Participants will receive extra sessions of physiotherapy, pharmacy, and dietetics during their admission. A Community Implementation Facilitator will coordinate implementation of the frailty management strategies and primary network liaison. The primary outcome is number of days of non-elective hospital readmissions during 12 month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include frailty status measured using the FRAIL scale; quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L; and time-to-event for readmission and readmission rates. The total cost of delivering the intervention will be assessed, and cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted. Economic evaluation will include analyses for health outcomes measured in terms of the main clinical outcomes. Implementation outcomes will be collected as part of a process evaluation. Recruitment commenced in 2020 and we are aiming to recruit 732 participants over the three-year duration of the study.

Discussion

This study will reveal whether intervening with frail older people to address factors contributing to frailty can reduce hospital readmissions and improve frailty status and quality of life. If the FORTRESS intervention provides a clinically significant and cost-effective result, it will demonstrate an improved approach to treating frail patients, both in hospital and when they return home.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12620000760976p. ANZCTR registered 24 July 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03178-1.

Cost-Effectiveness of an Exercise Programme That Provided Group or Individual Training to Reduce the Fall Risk in Healthy Community-Dwelling People Aged 65-80: A Secondary Data Analysis

Research has demonstrated that some exercise programs are effective for reducing fall rates in community-dwelling older people; however, the literature is limited in providing clear recommendations of individual or group training as a result of economic evaluation. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) for reducing the fall risk in healthy, non-institutionalized older people. An economic evaluation of a multicenter, blinded, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial was performed on 498 patients aged over 65 in primary care. Participants were randomly allocated to the treatment or control arms, and group or individual training. The program was delivered in primary healthcare settings and comprised five initial sessions, ongoing encouragement and support to exercise at home, and a reinforcement session after six months. Our hypothesis was that the patients who received the intervention would achieve better health outcomes and therefore need lower healthcare resources during the follow-up, thus, lower healthcare costs. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which used the timed up and go test results as an effective measure for preventing falls. The secondary outcomes included differently validated tools that assessed the fall risk. The cost per patient was USD 51.28 lower for the group than the individual sessions in the control group, and the fall risk was 10% lower when exercises had a group delivery. The OEP program delivered in a group manner was superior to the individual method. We observed slight differences in the incremental cost estimations when using different tools to assess the risk of fall, but all of them indicated the dominance of the intervention group. The OEP group sessions were more cost-effective than the individual sessions, and the fall risk was 10% lower.