1
|
Bugge C, Hagen S, Elders A, Mason H, Goodman K, Dembinsky M, Melone L, Best C, Manoukian S, Dwyer L, Khunda A, Graham M, Agur W, Breeman S, Culverhouse J, Forrest A, Forrest M, Guerrero K, Hemming C, McClurg D, Norrie J, Thakar R, Kearney R. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of pessary self-management versus clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse in women: the TOPSY RCT with process evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2024; 28:1-121. [PMID: 38767959 DOI: 10.3310/nwtb5403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care. Objectives To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity. Design A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Participants Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking. Intervention The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice. Allocation Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre. Blinding Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation. Outcomes The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations. Conclusions Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol Bugge
- School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Suzanne Hagen
- Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Andrew Elders
- Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Helen Mason
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Kirsteen Goodman
- Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - Lynn Melone
- Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Catherine Best
- Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Stirling, UK
| | - Sarkis Manoukian
- Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - Lucy Dwyer
- The Warrell Unit, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Aethele Khunda
- South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Margaret Graham
- Health Sciences & Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
| | - Wael Agur
- School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, NHS Ayrshire & Arran, University of Glasgow, Kilmarnock, UK
| | - Suzanne Breeman
- Health Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | | | - Angela Forrest
- Patient and public representative of the TOPSY trial, UK
| | - Mark Forrest
- Health Services Research Unit (HSRU), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Karen Guerrero
- Department of Urogynaecology, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Christine Hemming
- Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital and Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Doreen McClurg
- Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
| | - John Norrie
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Ranee Thakar
- Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, Croydon University Hospital, Croydon, UK
| | - Rohna Kearney
- The Warrell Unit, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lim E, Harris RA, McKeon HE, Batchelor TJ, Dunning J, Shackcloth M, Anikin V, Naidu B, Belcher E, Loubani M, Zamvar V, Dabner L, Brush T, Stokes EA, Wordsworth S, Paramasivan S, Realpe A, Elliott D, Blazeby J, Rogers CA. Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022; 26:1-162. [PMID: 36524582 PMCID: PMC9791462 DOI: 10.3310/thbq1793] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1. LIMITATIONS Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population. CONCLUSIONS Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS. FUTURE WORK Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
|