Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 30(4): 381-93, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25393627

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the empirical and methodological cost-effectiveness evidence of surgical interventions for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of seven databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and NHSEED, research registers, the NICE Web site and conference proceedings was conducted in April 2012. Study quality was assessed in terms of meeting essential, preferred and UK NICE specific requirements for economic evaluations. RESULTS: The seventeen (breast = 3, colorectal = 7, prostate = 7) included studies covered a broad range of settings (nine European; eight non-European) and six were published over 10 years ago. The populations, interventions and comparators were generally well defined. Very few studies were informed by literature reviews and few used synthesized clinical evidence. Although the interventions had potential differential effects on recurrence and mortality rates, some studies used relatively short time horizons. Univariate sensitivity analyses were reported in all studies but less than a third characterized all uncertainty with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Although a third of studies incorporated patients' health-related quality of life data, only four studies used social tariff values. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dearth of recent robust evidence describing the cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in the management of breast, colorectal and prostate cancers. Many of the recent publications did not satisfy essential methodological requirements such as using clinical evidence informed by a systematic review and synthesis. Given the ratio of potential benefit and harms associated with cancer surgery and the volume of resources consumed by these, there is an urgent need to increase economic evaluations of these technologies.


Subject(s)
Decision Making , Health Policy , Neoplasms/surgery , Surgical Procedures, Operative/economics , Empirical Research , Female , Humans , Male , Technology Assessment, Biomedical
2.
Eur J Health Econ ; 11(1): 57-66, 2010 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19669182

ABSTRACT

AIM: Surgical site infection is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The multiresistant strains (MRSA) are resistant to most antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. Our aim was to explore whether there is a threshold of MRSA prevalence at which switching to routine glycopeptide-based antibiotic prophylaxis becomes cost-effective. METHODS: An indicative model was designed to explore the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin, cephalosporin or a combination, in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty. RESULTS: If the MRSA infection rate is equal to or above 0.25% and the rate of other infections with cephalosporin prophylaxis is equal to or above 0.2%, use of the combination antibiotic prophylaxis is optimal. DISCUSSION: Modelling the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MRSA prevention is complex due to uncertainty around resistance and effectiveness of glycopeptides. CONCLUSIONS: The indicative model provides a framework for evaluation. More work is needed to understand the impact of antibiotic resistance over time in these currently effective antibiotics.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/economics , Cephalosporins/economics , Glycopeptides/economics , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Staphylococcal Infections/economics , Surgical Wound Infection/economics , Vancomycin/economics , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/economics , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/statistics & numerical data , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Cephalosporins/therapeutic use , Confidence Intervals , Decision Support Techniques , Drug Therapy, Combination , Glycopeptides/therapeutic use , Humans , Length of Stay/economics , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Models, Economic , Odds Ratio , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Staphylococcal Infections/mortality , Staphylococcal Infections/prevention & control , Surgical Wound Infection/mortality , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , United Kingdom , Vancomycin/therapeutic use
3.
Sleep Med Rev ; 13(6): 427-36, 2009 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19362029

ABSTRACT

We conducted a systematic review of current evidence on the effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS). The primary outcomes were subjective sleepiness, using Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and objective sleepiness using Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) and Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). Mean difference (MD) in endpoints was used to compare CPAP to usual care, placebo and dental devices. The analysis was stratified by symptom and disease severity at baseline. CPAP significantly reduced ESS score compared to control (MD -2.7, 95% CI -3.45, -1.96). The benefit was greatest in patients whose symptoms were severe at baseline: severely symptomatic population (MD -5.0, -6.5, -3.5); moderate (MD -2.3, -3.0, -1.6); mild (MD -1.1, -1.8, -0.3). CPAP significantly improved MWT score compared to control (MD 3.3, 1.3, 5.3) but not on the MSLT. There was no statistically significant difference between CPAP and dental devices on the ESS, MWT or MSLT, in a population with moderate symptoms. There was some evidence of benefit for blood pressure with CPAP compared to control. CPAP is an effective treatment for OSAHS in moderate to severe symptomatic patients and there may be benefits for mild symptoms. Dental devices may be a treatment option for moderate symptoms.


Subject(s)
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/therapy , Comorbidity , Cross-Over Studies , Disorders of Excessive Somnolence/diagnosis , Disorders of Excessive Somnolence/therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/therapy , Occlusal Splints , Polysomnography , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/diagnosis , Treatment Outcome , Wakefulness
4.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 25(1): 26-34, 2009 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19126248

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: An important option for the medical treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep. This study reports on the cost-effectiveness of CPAP compared with dental devices and lifestyle advice. The work was commissioned by the NHS HTA Programme to inform the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) appraisal of CPAP. METHODS: A Markov model compared the interventions over the expected patient lifetime. The primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The QALY incorporated the impact of treatments on daytime sleepiness, blood pressure and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: On average, CPAP was associated with higher costs and QALYs compared with dental devices or lifestyle advice. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CPAP compared with dental devices was around 4,000 pounds per QALY (2005--06 prices). The probability that CPAP is more cost-effective than dental devices or lifestyle advice at a threshold value of 20,000 pounds per QALY was 0.78 for men and 0.80 for women. Several sensitivity analyses were undertaken and it was found that the ICER for CPAP consistently fell below 20,000 pounds per QALY gained, apart from in a subgroup with mild disease. CONCLUSIONS: The model suggests that CPAP is cost-effective compared with dental devices and lifestyle advice for adults with moderate or severe symptomatic OSAHS at the cost-effectiveness thresholds used by NICE. This finding is reflected in the NICE guidance.


Subject(s)
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/economics , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Markov Chains , Models, Economic , Models, Statistical , Probability , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom
5.
Eur J Health Econ ; 9(2): 137-45, 2008 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17476538

ABSTRACT

This paper outlines methodological challenges encountered in producing an independent economic evaluation for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to inform its technology appraisal process. The analysis used to highlight these challenges is a recent evaluation of pharmacological treatments for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The NICE reference case for economic evaluation is compared with the methods necessary to complete an evaluation given the evidence base for ADHD. The primary analysis deviated from NICE methods guidelines most noticeably in the time horizon. Identifying appropriate utility data was challenging, and the results were sensitive to the values used. Issues found in this evaluation are common to many technology appraisals. Although challenging to undertake, economic evaluation in disease areas such as ADHD has great potential to add value, making the limitations of the data explicit, combining available evidence in a systematic and transparent framework and identifying future research needs.


Subject(s)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/therapy , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/methods , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/economics , Behavior Therapy , Central Nervous System Stimulants/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis/standards , Decision Making , Dextroamphetamine/therapeutic use , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sickness Impact Profile , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/standards , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...