Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins : results from the comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial
MetadataShow full item record
Primary outcome measures: Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcome measures: Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs. Results: The results appear generalisable in that participants’ baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (p
Brittenden , J , Cotton , S C , Elders , A , Tassie , E , Scotland , G , Ramsay , C R , Norrie , J , Burr , J , Francis , J , Wileman , S , Campbell , B , Bachoo , P , Chetter , I , Gough , M , Earnshaw , J , Lees , T , Scott , J , Baker , S A , MacLennan , G , Prior , M , Bolsover , D & Campbell , M K 2015 , ' Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins : results from the comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial ' , Health Technology Assessment , vol. 19 , no. 27 , pp. 1-341 . https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19270
Health Technology Assessment
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2015. This work was produced by Brittenden et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.