Limited evidence exists regarding the cost and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrence and progression to muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). We examined these effects using evidence from a recent randomized control trial. The costs and HRQoL associated with bladder cancer were assessed using data from the BOXIT trial (bladder COX-2 inhibition trial; n = 472). The cost and HRQoL effects from clinical events were estimated using generalized estimating equations. The costs were derived from the recorded resource usage and UK unit costs. HRQoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-3L and reported UK preference tariffs. The events were categorized using the TMN classification. Cases of grade 3 recurrence and progression were associated with statistically significant HRQoL decrements (-0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.13 to -0.03; and -0.10; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.03, respectively). The 3-year average cost per NMIBC patient was estimated at £8735 (95% CI, 8325-9145). Cases of grade 1, 2, and 3 recurrence were associated with annual cost effects of £1218 (95% CI, 403-2033), £1677 (95% CI, 920-2433), and £3957 (95% CI, 2332-5583), respectively. Progression to MIBC was associated with an average increase in costs of £5407 (95% CI, 2663-8152). Evidence from the BOXIT trial suggests that patients with NMIBC will both experience decrements in HRQoL and incur significant costs, especially in the event of a grade 3 recurrence or a progression to MIBC.

The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Highly Specialised Technologies (HST) programme to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) for an appraisal of Strimvelis^®, a gene therapy treatment for adenosine deaminase deficiency–severe combined immunodeficiency (ADA-SCID). This paper describes the manufacturing company’s submission of clinical and economic evidence, the ERG’s review and the resulting NICE guidance. For Strimvelis^® compared with haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) from a matched unrelated donor (MUD) and HSCT from a haploidentical donor, the company base-case deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £36,360 and £14,645 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively (using a discount rate of 1.5%). Although overall survival in patients receiving Strimvelis^® was substantially higher than historical comparator data on HSCT from a MUD or haploidentical donor, the ERG was concerned that the estimated treatment benefit remained highly uncertain. The ERG critiqued some assumptions in the cost-effectiveness model, including that all patients return to general population mortality and morbidity after a successful procedure; that all patients receive a matched sibling donor following an unsuccessful engraftment; and that differences in wait times exist between the treatments. Incorporating a number of changes to the model, the ERG’s base-case ICERs were £86,815 per QALY gained for Strimvelis^® compared with HSCT from a MUD and £16,704 per QALY gained compared with HSCT from a haploidentical donor (using a discount rate of 1.5%). The ICER for Strimvelis^® compared with HSCT from a MUD was highly sensitive to the difference in procedural mortality and could exceed NICE’s £100,000 per QALY gained threshold for HSTs, if HSCT survival rates have improved since the most recent data. The evaluation committee concluded that the most plausible ICERs were lower than £100,000 per QALY gained and that Strimvelis^® should be recommended for treatment of ADA-SCID where a matched related donor is unavailable.

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of management strategies for patients presenting with chest pain and suspected coronary heart disease (CHD): (1) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR); (2) myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS); and (3) UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline-guided care. Methods Using UK data for 1202 patients from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 trial, we conducted an economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of CMR, MPS and NICE guidelines. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs reflected UK pound sterling in 2016–2017. Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net health benefits overall and for low, medium and high pretest likelihood of CHD subgroups. Results CMR had the highest estimated QALY gain overall (2.21 (95% credible interval 2.15, 2.26) compared with 2.07 (1.92, 2.20) for NICE and 2.11 (2.01, 2.22) for MPS) and incurred comparable costs (overall £1625 (£1431, £1824) compared with £1753 (£1473, £2032) for NICE and £1768 (£1572, £1989) for MPS). Overall, CMR was the cost-effective strategy, being the dominant strategy (more effective, less costly) with incremental net health benefits per patient of 0.146 QALYs (−0.18, 0.406) compared with NICE guidelines at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15 000 per QALY (93% probability of cost-effectiveness). Results were similar in the pretest likelihood subgroups. Conclusions CMR-guided care is cost-effective overall and across all pretest likelihood subgroups, compared with MPS and NICE guidelines.

Background: Parkinson’s disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson’s disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6–12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement. Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson’s disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON. Methods: We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device. Results: Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Limitations: The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology. Conclusions: Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Office workers spend 70–85% of their time at work sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor physiological and psychological health. Evidence shows the need for fully powered randomised controlled trials, with long-term follow-up, to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting time. Objective: Our objective was to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable workstation, compared with usual practice at 12-month follow-up. Design: A three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Councils in England. Participants: Office workers. Intervention: SMART Work & Life is a multicomponent intervention that includes behaviour change strategies, delivered by workplace champions. Clusters were randomised to (1) the SMART Work & Life intervention, (2) the SMART Work & Life intervention with a height-adjustable workstation (i.e. SMART Work & Life plus desk) or (3) a control group (i.e. usual practice). Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was device-assessed daily sitting time compared with usual practice at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included sitting, standing, stepping time, physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, biochemical measures, musculoskeletal issues, psychosocial variables, work-related health, diet and sleep. Cost-effectiveness and process evaluation data were collected. Results: A total of 78 clusters (756 participants) were randomised [control, 26 clusters (n = 267); SMART Work & Life only, 27 clusters (n = 249); SMART Work & Life plus desk, 25 clusters (n = 240)]. At 12 months, significant differences between groups were found in daily sitting time, with participants in the SMART Work & Life-only and SMART Work & Life plus desk arms sitting 22.2 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –38.8 to –5.7 minutes/day; p = 0.003) and 63.7 minutes per day (97.5% confidence interval –80.0 to –47.4 minutes/day; p < 0.001), respectively, less than the control group. Participants in the SMART Work & Life plus desk arm sat 41.7 minutes per day (95% confidence interval –56.3 to –27.0 minutes/day; p < 0.001) less than participants in the SMART Work & Life-only arm. Sitting time was largely replaced by standing time, and changes in daily behaviour were driven by changes during work hours on workdays. Behaviour changes observed at 12 months were similar to 3 months. At 12 months, small improvements were seen for stress, well-being and vigour in both intervention groups, and for pain in the lower extremity and social norms in the SMART Work & Life plus desk group. Results from the process evaluation supported these findings, with participants reporting feeling more energised, alert, focused and productive. The process evaluation also showed that participants viewed the intervention positively; however, the extent of engagement varied across clusters. The average cost of SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk was £80.59 and £228.31 per participant, respectively. Within trial, SMART Work & Life only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,091 per quality-adjusted life-year, with SMART Work & Life plus desk being dominated. Over a lifetime, SMART Work & Life only and SMART Work & Life plus desk had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £4985 and £13,378 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Limitations: The study was carried out in one sector, limiting generalisability. Conclusions: The SMART Work & Life intervention, provided with and without a height-adjustable workstation, was successful in changing sitting time. Future work: There is a need for longer-term follow-up, as well as follow-up within different organisations. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11618007.