BACKGROUND: Spatial repellents (SRs) have been widely used for the prevention of mosquito bites, and preliminary findings suggest efficacy against both malaria (1) and Aedes-borne viruses (2) but their effectiveness in reducing mosquito-borne diseases under operational use has never been evaluated. SRs have the potential of being critical tools in the prevention of mosquito-borne diseases in contexts where typical vector control strategies, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying, are inaccessible or underutilized such as among displaced persons or in emergency relief settings.
METHODS: Children will be enrolled in 3 separate cohorts to establish the effectiveness of SRs in reducing malaria infection in different distribution channels. One cohort will estimate the direct effect of the SR distributed through a reference channel (study personnel distribution). The two remaining cohorts will estimate the protection of the SR distributed through a voucher channel and the Village Health Team channel. Cohorts will be followed twice a month (approximately every 15 days): during the first scheduled household visit in the month, a blood sample will be taken for malaria rapid diagnostic test (Monthly Visit #1); and, during the second scheduled household visit, a blood sample will only be taken if the participant has a recent history of fever (Monthly Visit #2). The incidence of malaria in each cohort will be estimated and compared to the reference cohort to determine the benefit of using a SR in an area with high, year-round transmission of malaria.
CONCLUSIONS: This study will address the knowledge gap of whether or not SRs are effective in reducing human malaria disease in humanitarian assistance and emergency response settings in sub-Saharan Africa where underlying transmission rates are historically high and ITNs may or may not be widely deployed. This research will inform policy makers on whether to recommend SRs as a means to further reduce malaria transmission for such operational programs.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06122142. Registered on November 8, 2023.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies report that the robotic approach is more costly than laparoscopy, the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is still an issue. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the RDP and LDP approaches across several Spanish centres.
METHODS: This study is an observational, multicenter, national prospective study (ROBOCOSTES). For one year from 2022, all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included, and clinical, QALY, and cost data were prospectively collected. The primary aim was to analyze the cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP.
RESULTS: During the study period, 80 procedures from 14 Spanish centres were analyzed. LDP had a shorter operative time than the RDP approach (192.2 min vs 241.3 min, p = 0.004). RDP showed a lower conversion rate (19.5% vs 2.5%, p = 0.006) and a lower splenectomy rate (60% vs 26.5%, p = 0.004). A statistically significant difference was reported for the Comprehensive Complication Index between the two study groups, favouring the robotic approach (12.7 vs 6.1, p = 0.022). RDP was associated with increased operative costs of 1600 euros (p < 0.031), while overall cost expenses resulted in being 1070.92 Euros higher than the LDP but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.064). The mean QALYs at 90 days after surgery for RDP (0.9534) were higher than those of LDP (0.8882) (p = 0.030). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000 euros, there was a 62.64% and 71.30% probability that RDP was more cost-effective than LDP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The RDP procedure in the Spanish healthcare system appears more cost-effective than the LDP.

UNASSIGNED: The clinical effectiveness of multidisciplinary co-managed care for hip fracture patients in China has been demonstrated in a multicenter non-randomized controlled study. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the co-managed care.
UNASSIGNED: The study is based on a multicenter clinical trial (n = 2071) in China. We developed a state transition microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the co-managed care compared with usual care for hip fracture patients from healthcare system perspective. The costs incorporated into the model included hospitalization costs, post-discharge expenses, and secondary fracture therapy costs. Effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs and effects were discounted at 5% annually. A simulation cycle length of 1-year and a lifetime horizon were employed. The cost-effectiveness threshold was established at USD 37,118. To address uncertainties, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.
UNASSIGNED: In the base case analysis, the co-managed care group had a lifetime cost of USD 31,571 and achieved an effectiveness of 3.22 QALYs, whereas the usual care group incurred a cost of USD 27,878 and gained 2.85 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 9981 per QALY gained; thus the co-managed care model was cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the age of having hip fractures and hospitalization costs in the intervention group.
UNASSIGNED: The co-managed care in hip fracture patients represents value for money, and should be scaled up and prioritized for funding in China.
UNASSIGNED: The study is supported by Capital\'s Funds for Health Improvement and Research (2022-1-2071, 2018-1-2071).

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive day procedure that the MERIT randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated to be an effective and safe method of weight loss versus lifestyle modification alone. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ESG from the perspective of a US commercial payer in a cohort of adults with class II and class I obesity with diabetes based on this RCT.
METHODS: We used a Markov modelling approach with BMI group health states and an absorbing death state. Baseline characteristics, utilities, BMI group transition probabilities, and adverse events (AEs) were informed by patient-level data from the MERIT RCT. Mortality was estimated by applying BMI-specific hazard ratios to US general population mortality rates. We used BMI-based health state utilities to reflect the impact of obesity comorbidities and applied disutilities due to ESG AEs. Costs included intervention costs, AE costs, and BMI-based annual direct healthcare costs to account for costs associated with obesity comorbidities. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was assumed.
RESULTS: In our base-case analysis over a 5-year time horizon, ESG was cost-effective versus lifestyle modification alone with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,432/QALY. ESG remained cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses we conducted and was dominant in analyses with longer time horizons.
CONCLUSIONS: ESG is a cost-effective treatment option for people living with obesity and should be considered in commercial health plans as an additional treatment option for clinically eligible patients.

UNASSIGNED: The medication regimen for critically ill patients is complex and dynamic, leading to a high incidence of drug-related problems. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and economic efficiency of pharmaceutical care for these patients.
UNASSIGNED: In this prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary hospital, adult patients were assigned either to a clinical pharmaceutical care group or a control group based on existing clinical grouping rules. Health outcomes and economic indicators were collected, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The acceptance rate for clinical pharmacist interventions was 89.31%. The pharmaceutical care group exhibited significant reductions in the rate of medication errors (40.65% vs. 61.69%, P < 0.001) and adverse drug events (44.52% vs. 56.45%, P = 0.020). The usage rates for special-grade antibiotics (85.16% vs. 91.13%, P = 0.009) and proton pump inhibitors (77.42% vs. 88.71%, P = 0.002) were also lower in the pharmaceutical care group. Secondary outcomes did not show significant differences in total hospital stay (21 days vs. 22 days, P = 0.092). However, ICU stay was significantly shorter (9 days vs. 11 days, P = 0.003) in the pharmaceutical care group. Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that each 1% reduction in adverse drug events associated with ICU pharmaceutical care saved $226.75 in ICU hospitalization costs and $203.42 in total ICU drug costs. A 1% reduction in the medication error rate saved $128.57 in ICU hospitalization costs and $115.34 in total ICU drug costs.
UNASSIGNED: Pharmaceutical care significantly reduces adverse drug events and medication errors, promotes rational use of medications, decreases the length of ICU stay, and lowers treatment costs in critically ill patients, establishing a definitive advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: This study is a cost-effectiveness study of two implementation strategies designed to train therapists in college and university counseling centers to deliver interpersonal psychotherapy. Costs of implementing a train-the-trainer (TTT) strategy versus an expert consultation strategy were estimated, and their relative effects upon therapist outcomes were calculated and compared.
METHODS: Twenty four counseling centers were recruited across the United States. These centers were randomized to either a TTT (experimental) condition, in which an in-house therapist trained other center therapists, or an expert consultation condition, in which center therapists participated in a workshop and received 12 months of ongoing supervision. The main outcome was therapist fidelity (adherence and competence) to interpersonal psychotherapy, assessed via audio recordings of therapy sessions, and analyzed using linear mixed models. Costs of each condition were quantified using time-driven activity-based costing methods, and involved a costing survey administered to center directors, follow up interviews and validation checks, and comparison of time tracking logs of trainers in the expert condition. Mean costs to produce one therapist were obtained for each condition. The costs to produce equivalent improvements in therapist-level outcomes were then compared between the two conditions.
RESULTS: Mean cost incurred by counseling centers to train one therapist using the TTT strategy was $3,407 (median = $3,077); mean cost to produce one trained therapist in the control condition was $2,055 (median = $1,932). Therapists in the TTT condition, on average, demonstrated a 0.043 higher adherence score compared to therapists in the control condition; however, this difference was not statistically significant. For the competence outcome, effect size for therapists in the TTT condition was in the large range (1.16; 95% CI: 0.85-1.46; p < .001), and therapists in this condition, on average, demonstrated a 0.073 higher competence score compared to those in the expert consultation condition (95% CI, 0.008-0.14; p = .03). Counseling centers that used the TTT model incurred $353 less in training costs to produce equivalent improvements in therapist competence.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite its higher short run costs, the TTT implementation strategy produces greater increases in therapist competence when compared to expert consultation. Expanding resources to support this platform for service delivery can be an effective way to enhance the mental health care of young people seeking care in college and university counseling centers.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02079142.

Introduction: Cancer, particularly lung cancer, is a significant global healthcare challenge. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) constitutes 85% of cases. Patients often seek alternative therapies like Chinese medicine alongside Western treatments. This study investigates the survival outcomes and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive Chinese medicine therapy for NSCLC patients in Taiwan. Methods: We utilized the National Health Insurance Research Database in a retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2018, focusing on NSCLC patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2013. After propensity score matching 1:5 ratio, then compared patients with and without adjunctive Chinese medicine therapy. Survival outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The study involved 43,122 NSCLC patients with 5.76% receiving adjunctive Chinese medicine. There is no significant associated between the risk of death and adjuvant Chinese medicine therapy until 181-365 days of adjuvant treatment could reduce the risk of death (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 880,908 NT$/year. Conclusion: Adjunctive Chinese medicine therapy, particularly when administered for 181-365 days, significantly reduced the mortality risk among stage IV NSCLC patients. The cost-effectiveness aligns with willingness-to-pay thresholds, indicating economic benefit.

BACKGROUND: Acute leukaemias (AL) are life-threatening blood cancers that can be potentially cured with treatment involving myelosuppressive, multiagent, intensive chemotherapy (IC). However, such treatment is associated with a risk of serious infection, in particular invasive fungal infection (IFI) associated with prolonged neutropenia. Current practice guidelines recommend primary antifungal (AF) prophylaxis to be administered to high-risk patients to reduce IFI incidence. AFs are also used empirically to manage prolonged neutropenic fever. Current strategies lead to substantial overuse of AFs. Galactomannan (GM) and β-D-glucan (BG) biomarkers are also used to diagnose IFI. Combining both biomarkers may enhance the predictability of IFI compared to administering each test alone. Currently, no large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared a biomarker-based diagnostic screening strategy without AF prophylaxis to AF prophylaxis (without systematic biomarker testing).
METHODS: BioDriveAFS is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm RCT of 404 participants from UK NHS Haematology departments. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either a biomarker-based antifungal stewardship (AFS) strategy, or a prophylactic AF strategy, which includes existing standard of care (SoC). The co-primary outcomes will be AF exposure in the 12-month post randomisation and the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L measured at 12-month post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include total AF exposure, probable/proven IFI, survival (all-cause mortality and IFI mortality), IFI treatment outcome, AF-associated adverse effects/events/complications, resource use, episodes of neutropenic fever requiring hospital admission or outpatient management, AF resistance in fungi (non-invasive and invasive) and a Desirability of Outcome Ranking. The trial will have an internal pilot phase during the first 9 months. A mixed methods process evaluation will be integrated in parallel to the internal pilot phase and full trial, aiming to robustly assess how the intervention is delivered. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed.
CONCLUSIONS: The BioDriveAFS trial aims to further the knowledge of strategies that will safely optimise AF use through comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a biomarker-led diagnostic strategy versus prophylactic AF to prevent and manage IFI within acute leukaemia. The evidence generated from the study will help inform global clinical practice and approaches within antifungal stewardship.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN11633399. Registered 24/06/2022.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing link workers are non-health or social care professionals who connect people with psychosocial needs to non-clinical community supports. They are being implemented widely, but there is limited evidence for appropriate target populations or cost effectiveness. This study aimed to explore the feasibility, potential impact on health outcomes and cost effectiveness of practice-based link workers for people with multimorbidity living in deprived urban communities.
METHODS: A pragmatic exploratory randomised trial with wait-list usual care control and blinding at analysis was conducted during the COVID 19 pandemic (July 2020 to January 2021). Participants had two or more ongoing health conditions, attended a general practitioner (GP) serving a deprived urban community who felt they may benefit from a one-month practice-based social prescribing link worker intervention.. Feasibility measures were recruitment and retention of participants, practices and link workers, and completion of outcome data. Primary outcomes at one month were health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and mental health (HADS). Potential cost effectiveness from the health service perspective was evaluated using quality adjusted life years (QALYs), based on conversion of the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-A capability index to utility scoring.
RESULTS: From a target of 600, 251 patients were recruited across 13 general practices. Randomisation to intervention (n = 123) and control (n = 117) was after baseline data collection. Participant retention at one month was 80%. All practices and link workers (n = 10) were retained for the trial period. Data completion for primary outcomes was 75%. There were no significant differences identified using mixed effects regression analysis in EQ-5D-5L (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.09) or HADS (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.73), and no cost effectiveness advantages. A sensitivity analysis that considered link workers operating at full capacity in a non-pandemic setting, indicated the probability of effectiveness at the €45,000 ICER threshold value for Ireland was 0.787 using the ICECAP-A capability index.
CONCLUSIONS: While the trial under-recruited participants mainly due to COVID-19 restrictions, it demonstrates that robust evaluations and cost utility analyses are possible. Further evaluations are required to establish cost effectiveness and should consider using the ICE-CAP-A wellbeing measure for cost utility analysis.
BACKGROUND: This trial is registered on ISRCTN.
BACKGROUND: Use of link workers to provide social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with complex multimorbidity in socially deprived areas.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN10287737. Date registered 10/12/2019. Link: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10287737.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a 12-week subsidised exercise programme on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in community-dwelling older Australians, and the cost-utility of the programme.
METHODS: Quasi-experimental, pre-post study.
METHODS: Participants included community-dwelling older adults, aged ≥65 years, from every state and territory of Australia. The intervention consisted of 12 one-hour, weekly, low-to-moderate-intensity exercise classes, delivered by accredited exercise scientists or physiologists (AESs/AEPs). Health-related quality of life was measured before and after programme participation using the EQ-5D-3L and converted to a utility index using Australian value tariffs. Participant, organisational and service provider costs were reported. Multivariable linear mixed models were used to evaluate the change in HRQoL following programme completion. Cost-utility outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), based on programme costs and the change in utility scores.
RESULTS: 3511 older adults (77 % female) with a median (IQR) age of 72 (69-77) years completed follow-up testing. There was a small improvement in EQ-5D-3L utility scores after programme completion (0.04, 95 % CI: 0.04, 0.05, p < 0.001). The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was $12,893.
CONCLUSIONS: Older Australians who participated in the Exercise Right for Active Ageing programme reported small improvements in HRQoL following programme completion, and this included older adults living in regional/rural areas. Funding subsidised exercise classes, may be a low-cost strategy for improving health outcomes in older adults and reducing geographic health disparities.
BACKGROUND: The study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12623000483651).