The systematic review concludes that there is insufficient evidence available to assess the clinical effectiveness of surveillance programmes of Barrett's oesophagus. There are numerous gaps in the evidence, of which the lack of RCT data is the major one. The expert workshop reflected these gaps in the range of topics raised as important in answering the question of the effectiveness of surveillance. Previous models of cost-effectiveness have most recently shown that surveillance programmes either do more harm than good compared with no surveillance or are unlikely to be cost-effective at usual levels of willingness to pay. Our cost--utility model has shown that, across a range of values for the various parameters that have been chosen to reflect uncertainty in the inputs, it is likely that surveillance programmes do more harm than good -- costing more and conferring lower quality of life than no surveillance. Probabilistic analysis shows that, in most cases, surveillance does more harm and costs more than no surveillance. It is unlikely, but still possible, that surveillance may prove to be cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, however, shows that surveillance is unlikely to be cost-effective at either the 'usual' level of willingness to pay ( pound 20,000-30,000 per QALY) or at much higher levels. The expected value of perfect information at the population level is pound 6.5 million. Future research should target both the overall effectiveness of surveillance and the individual elements that contribute to a surveillance programme, particularly the performance of the test and the effectiveness of treatment for both Barrett's oesophagus and ACO. In addition, of particular importance is the clarification of the natural history of Barrett's oesophagus.

This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundIn adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money.Methods/designThe EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a ‘treatment as usual’ control or a ‘defined epilepsy nurse role’ active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants’ carers are also undertaken.DiscussionThe EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1429-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The development of a nurse‐led approach to managing epilepsy in adults with an intellectual disability (ID) offers the potential of improved outcomes and lower costs of care. We undertook a cluster randomised trial to assess the impact on costs and outcomes of the provision of ID nurses working to a designated epilepsy nurse competency framework. Here, we report the impact of the intervention on costs. Method Across the United Kingdom, eight sites randomly allocated to the intervention recruited 184 participants and nine sites allocated to treatment as usual recruited 128 participants. Cost and outcome data were collected mainly by telephone interview at baseline and after 6 months. Total costs at 6 months were compared from the perspective of health and social services and society, with adjustments for pre‐specified participant and cluster characteristics at baseline including costs. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was quantified by bootstrapping. Results The intervention was associated with lower per participant costs from a health and social services perspective of −£357 (2014/2015 GBP) (95% confidence interval −£986, £294) and from a societal perspective of −£631 (95% confidence interval −£1473, £181). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of accommodation costs. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the competency framework is unlikely to increase the cost of caring for people with epilepsy and ID and may reduce costs.