Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat: the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation

Author:

Wilson Janet A1ORCID,Fouweather Tony1ORCID,Stocken Deborah D2ORCID,Homer Tara1ORCID,Haighton Catherine3ORCID,Rousseau Nikki2ORCID,O’Hara James4ORCID,Vale Luke1ORCID,Wilson Rebecca5ORCID,Carnell Sonya5ORCID,Wilkes Scott6ORCID,Morrison Jill7ORCID,Ah-See Kim8ORCID,Carrie Sean4ORCID,Hopkins Claire9ORCID,Howe Nicola5ORCID,Hussain Musheer10ORCID,Lindley Lyndsay11ORCID,MacKenzie Kenneth12ORCID,McSweeney Lorraine1ORCID,Mehanna Hisham13ORCID,Raine Christopher14ORCID,Whelan Ruby Smith5ORCID,Sullivan Frank15ORCID,von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Alexander5ORCID,Teare Dawn1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

2. Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

3. Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

4. Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

5. Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

6. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK

7. Senate Office, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

8. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK

9. Ear, Nose and Throat and Head and Neck Department, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

10. School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

11. Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, UK

12. Department of Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK

13. Institute of Head and Neck Studies and Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

14. Ear, Nose and Throat Department, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK

15. Population and Behavioural Science Division, School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

Abstract

Background The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain. Objectives To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways. Design This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Participants A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial. Interventions Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms. Results There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12–52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11–46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14–65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it. Limitations The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial. Conclusions The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health and Care Research

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3