ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: There are conflicting reports on the short- and long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes and cost-effectiveness of cervical epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The present study analyzes the cost-effectiveness analysis of ESIs versus conservative management for patients with radiculopathy or neck pain in the short term. METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent cervical ESI and 29 patients who received physical therapy and pain medication alone for cervical radiculopathy and neck pain of <6 months duration were included. Three-month postoperative health outcomes were assessed based on EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; measured in quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Medical costs were estimated using Medicare national payment amounts. Cost/utility ratios and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated to assess for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The ESI cohort experienced significant (P < .01) improvement in the EQ-5D score while the control cohort did not (0.13 vs 0.02 QALYs, respectively; P = .01). There were no significant differences in costs between the cohorts. The cost-utility ratio for the ESI cohort was significantly lower ($21 884/QALY gained) than that for the control cohort ($176 412/QALY gained) (P < .01). The ICER for an ESI versus conservative management was negative, indicating that ESIs provide greater improvement in QOL at a lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: ESIs provide significant improvement in QOL within 3 months for patients with cervical radiculopathy and neck pain. ESIs are more cost-effective compared than conservative management alone in the shor -term. The durability of these results must be analyzed with longer term cost-utility analysis studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: American College of Gastroenterology and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease guidelines recommend endoscopic and pharmacologic treatment for esophageal variceal bleed. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement is reserved for cases of therapeutic failure. Several studies have suggested improved prevention of rebleeding and improved survival without excess hepatic encephalopathy in patients who receive TIPS within the first 5 days after bleeding (early TIPS). In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of early TIPS versus endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis after acute esophageal variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Pubmed, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared early TIPS to endoscopic therapy. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 year; secondary outcomes were rebleeding and hepatic encephalopathy at 1 year. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 608 cirrhotic patients were identified. Early TIPS was associated with a significant risk reduction in 1-year mortality (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = 0.03) and 1-year incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.20-0.40; P < 0.001) without significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2) = 30% and 47%, respectively). No significant difference in the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy at 1 year was observed (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.72-2.56; P = 0.34); however, there was significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2) = 68%). CONCLUSION: TIPS placed within 5 days after a major esophageal variceal hemorrhage is superior to endoscopic treatment in reducing subsequent bleeding. Early TIPS placement is also associated with superior 1-year survival without significantly increasing the incidence of hepatic encephalopathy.
