Peripherally InSerted CEntral catheter dressing and securement in patients with cancer: the PISCES trial. Protocol for a 2x2 factorial, superiority randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Around 30% of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) fail from vascular, infectious or mechanical complications. Patients with cancer are at highest risk, and this increases morbidity, mortality and costs. Effective PICC dressing and securement may prevent PICC failure; however, no large randomised controlled trial (RCT) has compared alternative approaches. We designed this RCT to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of dressing and securements to prevent PICC failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Pragmatic, multicentre, 2×2 factorial, superiority RCT of (1) dressings (chlorhexidine gluconate disc (CHG) vs no disc) and (2) securements (integrated securement dressing (ISD) vs securement device (SED)). A qualitative evaluation using a knowledge translation framework is included. Recruitment of 1240 patients will occur over 3 years with allocation concealment until randomisation by a centralised service. For the dressing hypothesis, we hypothesise CHG discs will reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infection (CABSI) compared with no CHG disc. For the securement hypothesis, we hypothesise that ISD will reduce composite PICC failure (infection (CABSI/local infection), occlusion, dislodgement or thrombosis), compared with SED. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: types of PICC failure; safety; costs; dressing/securement failure; dwell time; microbial colonisation; reversible PICC complications and consumer acceptability. Relative incidence rates of CABSI and PICC failure/100 devices and/1000 PICC days (with 95% CIs) will summarise treatment impact. Kaplan-Meier survival curves (and log rank Mantel-Haenszel test) will compare outcomes over time. Secondary end points will be compared between groups using parametric/non-parametric techniques; p values <0.05 will be considered to be statistically significant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from Queensland Health (HREC/15/QRCH/241) and Griffith University (Ref. No. 2016/063). Results will be published. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number is: ACTRN12616000315415.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS REPORTING COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION.

OBJECTIVES: Made available since 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive new intervention which can provide significant survival improvement to patients with aortic stenosis. However, TAVI is expensive and currently not reimbursed by many governments. Some governments and institutions have been conducting health technology assessments (HTAs) to inform their reimbursement decisions. The aim of the present study is to review HTAs that have relied on a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform reimbursement decisions of TAVI. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted among published literature as well as reports released by HTA agencies. Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, following the Preferred Reporting System for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, were used to select relevant HTAs. The selected papers were assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. RESULTS: HTAs on TAVI from three countries were available for this review: Canada, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. All three HTAs used the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) trial data with Markov models to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio. The three HTAs recommended conditional reimbursement for TAVI for otherwise inoperable patients. The HTAs did not use clear methods to estimate the health-related utility which ultimately affected their cost-effectiveness results. The UK HTA showed the best value for money (US$20,416 per quality-adjusted life-year). CONCLUSION: All studies found TAVI to be more costly and less effective for high-risk patients suitable for surgery, whereas TAVI was consistently found to be cost effective for otherwise inoperable patients.

Is shared misery double misery?

The literature has shown strong associations between health, financial and social life events and mental health. However, no studies as yet have looked at the temporal nature of the effects of life events on stated mental health nor have they included the effects of the events befalling partners within a household. This paper looks at the spillover in mental health, measured with the SF-36 scale, from one partner to the other, using life events to identify this relationship. We propose a new model that allows for both a temporal spacing of effects (anticipation and adaptation) as well as a spillover factor, which we define as the degree to which the events that are experienced by the partner affect us in the same way as if these events were to happen to us. We use data from 51,380 person-year observations of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey (2002-10) which consistently measures nine distinct events, including illnesses, social shocks and financial shocks. We find that the events befalling a partner on average have an effect about 15% as large as the effect of own events. We use the estimates to compute the compensation required to offset own and partner's life events. The methodology in this paper is potentially useful for estimating other spillover parameters such as the effects of others in the family or in the neighbourhood.