Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP in ARF. METHODS: A cost-utility economic evaluation was performed using a probabilistic decision tree model synthesising available evidence. The model consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients in a representative ambulance service with undifferentiated ARF, receiving standard oxygen therapy or prehospital CPAP. Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using methods recommended by NICE. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, using CPAP effectiveness estimates form the ACUTE trial, the mean expected costs of standard care and prehospital CPAP were £15,201 and £14,850 respectively and the corresponding mean expected QALYs were 1.190 and 1.128, respectively. The mean ICER estimated as standard oxygen therapy compared to prehospital CPAP was £5685 per QALY which indicated that standard oxygen therapy strategy was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY (67% probability). The scenario analysis, using effectiveness estimates from an updated meta-analysis, suggested that prehospital CPAP was more effective (mean incremental QALYs of 0.157), but also more expensive (mean incremental costs of £1522), than standard care. The mean ICER, estimated as prehospital CPAP compared to standard care, was £9712 per QALY. At the £20,000 per QALY prehospital CPAP was highly likely to be the most cost-effective strategy (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP depends upon the estimate of effectiveness. When based on a small pragmatic feasibility trial, standard oxygen therapy is cost-effective. When based on meta-analysis of heterogeneous trials, CPAP is cost-effective. Value of information analyses support commissioning of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial, providing feasibility and plausibility conditions are met.

Topical anaesthetics for premature ejaculation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics (EMLA) is recommended for use off-label as a treatment for premature ejaculation (PE). Other topical anaesthetics are available, some of which have been evaluated against oral treatments. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for topical anaesthetics in the management of PE. Bibliographic databases including MEDLINE were searched to August 2014. The primary outcome was intra-vaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT). Methodological quality of RCTs was assessed. IELT and other outcomes were pooled across RCTs in a meta-analysis. Between-trial heterogeneity was assessed. Nine RCTs were included. Seven were of unclear methodological quality. Pooled evidence (two RCTs, 43 participants) suggests that EMLA is significantly more effective than placebo at increasing IELT (P<0.00001). Individual RCT evidence also suggests that Topical Eutectic-like Mixture for Premature Ejaculation (TEMPE) spray and lidocaine gel are both significantly more effective than placebo (P=0.003; P<0.00001); and lidocaine gel is significantly more effective than sildenafil or paroxetine (P=0.01; P=0.0001). TEMPE spray is associated with significantly more adverse events than placebo (P=0.003). More systemic adverse events are reported with tramadol, sildenafil and paroxetine than with lidocaine gel. Diverse methods of assessing sexual satisfaction and ejaculatory control with topical anaesthetics are reported and evidence is conflicting. Topical anaesthetics appear more effective than placebo, paroxetine and sildenafil at increasing IELT in men with PE. However, the methodological quality of the existing RCT evidence base is uncertain.