-
International Journal of Obesity and... Oct 2003To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgery for people with morbid obesity. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgery for people with morbid obesity.
DESIGN
A systematic review of randomised control trials (RCTs), prospective clinical trials and economic evaluations identified from 14 electronic databases (including Medline, Cochrane library and Embase from their inception to October 2001), bibliographies and consultation with experts and manufacturers was performed to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of different surgical procedures and nonsurgical management for morbid obesity. An economic evaluation was undertaken to assess cost effectiveness in the UK.
SUBJECTS
People diagnosed as morbidly obese, defined as a body mass index (BMI) (weight in kilograms/height in metres(2)) >40 kg/m(2), or with a BMI>35 kg/m(2) with serious comorbid disease, in whom previous nonsurgical interventions had failed.
MEASUREMENTS
The outcomes assessed included weight change, quality of life, peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality, revision rates and obesity comorbidities. Cost effectiveness was modelled from these data and presented as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
RESULTS
Included studies differed in methodological quality. Surgery resulted in a significantly greater loss of weight (23-37 kg more weight) than nonsurgical treatment, which was maintained to 8 years and led to improvements in quality of life and comorbidities. The economic evaluation of surgery compared with nonsurgical management suggested that surgery was cost effective at pound 11000 per QALY. Comparisons of the different types of surgery were equivocal.
CONCLUSION
Surgery for morbid obesity appears to be clinically and cost effective. Because of the nature of the evidence, particularly the uncertainty in the clinical and economic evaluations, it is difficult to distinguish between the different surgical procedures.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Gastric Bypass; Gastroplasty; Humans; Jejunoileal Bypass; Obesity, Morbid; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Weight Loss
PubMed: 14513064
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802394 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2008To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of procedures alternative to TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate) for benign prostatic enlargement... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost utility of procedures alternative to TURP (transurethral resection of the prostate) for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) unresponsive to expectant, non-surgical treatments.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic searches of 13 databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and extracted data. The International Prostate Symptom Score/American Urological Association (IPSS/AUA) symptom score was the primary outcome; others included quality of life, peak urine flow rate and adverse effects. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model reflecting likely care pathways.
RESULTS
156 reports describing 88 RCTs were included. Most had fewer than 100 participants (range 12-234). TURP provided consistent, high-level, long-term symptomatic improvement. Minimally invasive procedures resulted in less marked improvement. Ablative procedures gave improvements equivalent to TURP. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) additionally resulted in greater improvement in flow rate. HoLEP is unique amongst the newer technologies in offering an advantage in urodynamic outcomes over TURP, although long-term follow-up data are lacking. Severe blood loss was more common following TURP. Rates of incontinence were similar across all interventions other than transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and laser coagulation, for which lower rates were reported. Acute retention and reoperation were commoner with newer technologies, especially minimally invasive interventions. The economic model suggested that minimally invasive procedures were unlikely to be cost-effective compared with TURP. Transurethral vaporisation of the prostate (TUVP) was both less costly and less effective than TURP. HoLEP was estimated to be more cost-effective than a single TURP but less effective than a strategy involving repeat TURP if necessary. The base-case analysis suggested an 80% chance that TUVP, followed by HoLEP if required, would be cost-effective at a threshold of 20,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year. At a 50,000 pounds threshold, TUVP, followed by TURP as required, would be cost-effective, although considerable uncertainty surrounds this finding. The main limitations are the quantity and quality of the data available, in the context of multiple comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of strong evidence in favour of newer methods, the standard--TURP--remains both clinically effective and cost-effective. There is a need for further research to establish (i) how many years of medical treatment are necessary to offset the cost of treatment with a minimally invasive or ablative intervention; (ii) more cost-effective alternatives to TURP; and (iii) strategies to improve outcomes after TURP.
Topics: Aged; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Databases, Bibliographic; Humans; Hyperthermia, Induced; Laser Therapy; Lasers, Solid-State; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 19032882
DOI: 10.3310/hta12350 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2010Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by irrigation of the ear if required. However, the safety and benefits of the different methods of removal are not known for certain.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions currently available for softening and/or removing earwax and any adverse events (AEs) associated with the interventions.
DATA SOURCES
Eleven electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2008, including: The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), EMBASE (OVID); and CINAHL.
METHODS
Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text or retrieved papers and data were extracted by two reviewers using data extraction forms developed a priori. Any differences were resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Study criteria included: interventions - all methods of earwax removal available and combinations of these methods; participants - adults/children presenting requiring earwax removal; outcomes - measures of hearing, adequacy of clearance of wax, quality of life, time to recurrence or further treatment, AEs and measures of cost-effectiveness; design - randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) for clinical effectiveness, cohort studies for AEs and cost-effectiveness, and costing studies for cost-effectiveness. For the economic evaluation, a deterministic decision tree model was developed to evaluate three options: (1) the use of softeners followed by irrigation in primary care; (2) softeners followed by self-irrigation; and (3) a 'no treatment' option. Outcomes were assessed in terms of benefits to patients and costs incurred, with costs presented by exploratory cost-utility analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-six clinical trials conducted in primary care (14 studies), secondary care (8 studies) or other care settings (4 studies), met the inclusion criteria for the review - 22 RCTs and 4 CCTs. The range of interventions included 16 different softeners, with or without irrigation, and in various different comparisons. Participants, outcomes, timing of intervention, follow-up and methodological quality varied between studies. On measures of wax clearance Cerumol, sodium bicarbonate, olive oil and water are all more effective than no treatment; triethanolamine polypeptide (TP) is better than olive oil; wet irrigation is better than dry irrigation; sodium bicarbonate drops followed by irrigation by nurse is more effective than sodium bicarbonate drops followed by self-irrigation; softening with TP and self-irrigation is more effective than self-irrigation only; and endoscopic de-waxing is better than microscopic de-waxing. AEs appeared to be minor and of limited extent. Resuts of the exploratory economic model found that softeners followed by self-irrigation were more likely to be cost-effective [24,433 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] than softeners followed by irrigation at primary care (32,130 pounds per QALY) when compared with no treatment. Comparison of the two active treatments showed that the additional gain associated with softeners followed by irrigation at primary care over softeners followed by self-irrigation was at a cost of 340,000 pounds per QALY. When compared over a lifetime horizon to the 'no treatment' option, the ICERs for softeners followed by self-irrigation and of softeners followed by irrigation at primary care were 24,450 pounds per QALY and 32,136 pounds per QALY, respectively.
LIMITATIONS
The systematic review found limited good-quality evidence of the safety, benefits and costs of the different strategies, making it difficult to differentiate between the various methods for removing earwax and rendering the economic evaluation as speculative.
CONCLUSIONS
Although softeners are effective, which specific softeners are most effective remains uncertain. Evidence on the effectiveness of methods of irrigation or mechanical removal was equivocal. Further research is required to improve the evidence base, such as a RCT incorporating an economic evaluation to assess the different ways of providing the service, the effectiveness of the different methods of removal and the acceptability of the different approaches to patients and practitioners.
Topics: Cerumen; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Models, Economic; Plant Oils; Primary Health Care; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sodium Bicarbonate; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 20546687
DOI: 10.3310/hta14280 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2023Anesthesiologists and hospitals are increasingly confronted with costs associated with the complications of Peripheral Nerve Blocks (PNB) procedures. The objective of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Anesthesiologists and hospitals are increasingly confronted with costs associated with the complications of Peripheral Nerve Blocks (PNB) procedures. The objective of our study was to identify the incidence of the main adverse events associated with regional anesthesia, particularly during anesthetic PNB, and to evaluate the associated healthcare and social costs.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search on EMBASE and PubMed with the following search strategy: ("regional anesthesia" OR "nerve block") AND ("complications" OR "nerve lesion" OR "nerve damage" OR "nerve injury"). Studies on patients undergoing a regional anesthesia procedure other than spinal or epidural were included. Targeted data of the selected studies were extracted and further analyzed.
RESULTS
Literature search revealed 487 articles, 21 of which met the criteria to be included in our analysis. Ten of them were included in the qualitative and 11 articles in the quantitative synthesis. The analysis of costs included data from four studies and 2,034 claims over 51,242 cases. The median claim consisted in 39,524 dollars in the United States and 22,750 pounds in the United Kingdom. The analysis of incidence included data from seven studies involving 424,169 patients with an overall estimated incidence of 137/10,000.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite limitations, we proposed a simple model of cost calculation. We found that, despite the relatively low incidence of adverse events following PNB, their associated costs were relevant and should be carefully considered by healthcare managers and decision makers.
Topics: Humans; United States; Financial Stress; Anesthesia, Conduction; Nerve Block
PubMed: 33823209
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.02.043 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2010To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, combined with interferon (IFN), sorafenib tosylate, sunitinib and temsirolimus in the treatment of people with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched up to September/October 2007 (and again in February 2008).
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials comparing any of the interventions with any of the comparators in participants with advanced and/or metastatic RCC were included, also phase II studies and conference abstracts if there was sufficient detail to adequately assess quality. Results were synthesised narratively and a decision-analytic Markov-type model was developed to simulate disease progression and estimate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions under consideration.
RESULTS
A total of 888 titles and abstracts were retrieved in the clinical effectiveness review, including reports of eight clinical trials. Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib had clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone, in terms of progression-free survival and tumour response, doubling median progression-free survival from approximately 5 months to 10 months. Temsirolimus had similar advantages over treatment with IFN in terms of progression-free and overall survival, increasing median overall survival from 7.3 to 10.9 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.92)], as did sorafenib in comparison with best supportive care in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival and tumour response, with a doubling of progression-free survival (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60). However, the last was associated with an increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot skin reaction compared with placebo. No fully published economic evaluations of any of the interventions could be located. However, estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Estimates of cost per QALY ranged from 71,462 pounds for sunitinib to 171,301 pounds for bevacizumab plus IFN. Although there are many similarities in the methodology and structural assumptions employed by PenTAG and the manufacturers of the interventions, in all cases the cost-effectiveness estimates from the PenTAG model were higher than those presented in the manufacturers' submissions. Cost-effectiveness estimates were particularly sensitive to variations in the estimates of treatment effectiveness, drug pricing (including dose intensity data), and health-state utility input parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN and sunitinib has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with IFN alone in patients with metastatic RCC. In people with three of six risk factors for poor prognosis, temsirolimus had clinically relevant advantages over treatment with IFN, and sorafenib tosylate was superior to best supportive care as second-line therapy. The frequency of adverse events associated with bevacizumab plus IFN, sunitinib and temsirolimus was comparable with that seen with IFN, although the adverse event profile is different. Treatment with sorafenib was associated with a significantly increased frequency of hypertension and hand-foot syndrome. Estimates from the PenTAG model suggested that none of the interventions would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pounds per QALY.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzenesulfonates; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Indoles; Kidney Neoplasms; Niacinamide; Phenylurea Compounds; Pyridines; Pyrroles; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sunitinib
PubMed: 20028613
DOI: 10.3310/hta14020 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2007To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of statins for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with, or at risk of,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of statins for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with, or at risk of, coronary heart disease (CHD).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched between November 2003 and April 2004.
REVIEW METHODS
A review was undertaken to identify and evaluate all literature relating to the clinical and cost effectiveness of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of CHD and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK. A Markov model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with a lifetime of statin treatment using a UK NHS perspective.
RESULTS
Thirty-one randomised studies were identified that compared a statin with placebo or with another statin, and reported clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis of the available data from the placebo-controlled studies indicates that, in patients with, or at risk of, CVD, statin therapy is associated with a reduced relative risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, CHD mortality and fatal myocardial infarction (MI), but not of fatal stroke. It is also associated with a reduced relative risk of morbidity [non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), unstable angina] and of coronary revascularisation. It is hardly possible, on the evidence available from the placebo-controlled trials, to differentiate between the clinical efficacy of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin. However, there is some evidence from direct comparisons between statins to suggest that atorvastatin may be more effective than pravastatin in patients with symptomatic CHD. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of statins in different subgroups. Statins are generally considered to be well tolerated and to have a good safety profile. This view is generally supported both by the evidence of the trials included in this review and by postmarketing surveillance data. Increases in creatine kinase and myopathy have been reported, but rhabdomyolysis and hepatotoxicity are rare. However, some patients may receive lipid-lowering therapy for as long as 50 years, and long-term safety over such a timespan remains unknown. In secondary prevention of CHD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) increase with age varying between pound 10,000 and pound 17,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for ages 45 and 85 respectively. Sensitivity analyses show these results are robust. In primary prevention of CHD there is substantial variation in ICERs by age and risk. The average ICERs weighted by risk range from pound 20,000 to pound 27,500 for men and from pound 21,000 to pound 57,000 for women. The results are sensitive to the cost of statins, discount rates and the modelling time frame. In the CVD analyses, which take into account the benefits of statins on reductions in stroke and TIA events, the average ICER weighted by risk level remains below pound 20,000 at CHD risk levels down to 0.5%. Limitations of the analyses include the requirement to extrapolate well beyond the timeframe of the trial period, and to extrapolate effectiveness results from higher risk primary prevention populations to the treatment of populations at much lower risk. Consequently, the results for the lower age bands and lower risks are subject to greater uncertainty and need to be treated with caution.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to suggest that statin therapy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of primary and secondary cardiovascular events. As the confidence intervals for each outcome in each prevention category overlap, it is not possible to differentiate, in terms of relative risk, between the effectiveness of statins in primary and secondary prevention. However, the absolute risk of CHD death/non-fatal MI is higher, and the number needed to treat to avoid such an event is consequently lower, in secondary than in primary prevention. The generalisability of these results is limited by the exclusion, in some studies, of patients who were hypersensitive to, intolerant of, or known to be unresponsive to, statins, or who were not adequately compliant with study medication during a placebo run-in phase. Consequently, the treatment effect may be reduced when statins are used in an unselected population. The results of the economic modelling show that statin therapy in secondary prevention is likely to be considered cost-effective. In primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness ratios are dependent on the level of CHD risk and age, but the results for the CVD analyses offer support for the more aggressive treatment recommendation issued by recent guidelines in UK. Evidence on clinical endpoints for rosuvastatin is awaited from on-going trials. The potential targeting of statins at low-risk populations is however associated with major uncertainties, particularly the likely uptake and long-term compliance to lifelong medication by asymptomatic younger patients. The targeting, assessment and monitoring of low-risk patients in primary care would be a major resource implication for the NHS. These areas require further research.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Coronary Disease; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Quality of Life
PubMed: 17408535
DOI: 10.3310/hta11140 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2009To assess whether thrombophilia testing following a venous thrombotic event is clinically effective and cost-effective in the management of thrombosis compared with no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether thrombophilia testing following a venous thrombotic event is clinically effective and cost-effective in the management of thrombosis compared with no testing for thrombophilia.
DATA SOURCES
Major electronic databases were searched from September to November 2006.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature was undertaken according to standard methods. A discrete event simulation model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of changing the standard 3-month duration of warfarin treatment to 10 years, 20 years or lifelong.
RESULTS
No clinical studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Further literature searches and clinical opinion were therefore used to inform the cost-effectiveness analysis. Thrombophilia testing in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) had an estimated mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of below 20,000 pounds regardless of sex or age. In patients with a previous deep vein thrombosis (DVT), thrombophilia testing had an estimated mean cost per QALY of below 20,000 pounds in men aged 69 years or less and in women aged 49 years or less. The estimated duration of warfarin treatment (lifelong, 20 years, 10 years or no extended treatment) that was most cost-effective is presented for each age, sex, initial venous thromboembolism (VTE) event and type of thrombophilia.
CONCLUSIONS
In terms of determining the duration of anticoagulation management, scenarios were found in which the cost per QALY of thrombophilia testing was below 20,000 pounds. However, these results are subject to great uncertainty, largely because of lack of knowledge about the increased risk of recurrence with each type of thrombophilia. Results are influenced by the fact that men have a greater risk of recurrence than women and by the fact that the frequency of adverse events associated with warfarin treatment increases with age. Further research, for example on the likely sensitivity and specificity of the tests for specific types of thrombophilia, is needed to reduce the uncertainty associated with these results. Studies comparing patients with VTE tested for thrombophilia with those whose risk assessment was based on personal and family history of thrombosis would also be beneficial.
Topics: Age Factors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Humans; Mass Screening; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Thrombophilia; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 19080721
DOI: 10.3310/hta13020 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2005To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers versus single-chamber atrial or single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in the treatment of... (Review)
Review
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers compared with single-chamber pacemakers for bradycardia due to atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome: systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacemakers versus single-chamber atrial or single-chamber ventricular pacemakers in the treatment of bradycardia due to sick sinus syndrome (SSS) or atrioventricular block (AVB).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases and relevant Internet sites. Contact with device manufacturers and experts in the field.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review was carried out of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of selected studies was appraised using standard frameworks. Meta-analyses, using random effects models, were carried out where appropriate. Limited exploration of heterogeneity was possible. Critical appraisal of economic evaluations was carried out using two frameworks. A decision-analytic model was developed using a Markov approach, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber versus ventricular or atrial pacing over 5 and 10 years as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
The searches retrieved a systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness published in 2002, four parallel group RCTs and 28 cross-over trials. Dual-chamber pacing was associated with lower rates of atrial fibrillation, particularly in SSS, than ventricular pacing, and prevents pacemaker syndrome. Higher rates of atrial fibrillation were seen with dual-chamber pacing than with atrial pacing. Complications occurred more frequently in dual-chamber pacemaker insertion. The cost of a dual-chamber system, over 5 years, including cost of complications and subsequent clinical events in the population, was estimated to be around 7400 pounds. The overall cost difference between single and dual systems is not large over this period: around 700 pounds more for dual-chamber devices. The cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber compared with ventricular pacing was estimated to be around 8500 pounds per QALY in AVB and 9500 pounds in SSS over 5 years, and around 5500 pounds per QALY in both populations over 10 years. Under more conservative assumptions, the cost-effectiveness of dual-chamber pacing is around 30,000 pounds per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, under the base-case assumptions, dual-chamber pacing is likely to be considered cost-effective at levels of willingness to pay that are generally considered acceptable by policy makers. In contrast, atrial pacing may be cost-effective compared with dual-chamber pacing.
CONCLUSIONS
Dual-chamber pacing results in small but potentially important benefits in populations with SSS and/or AVB compared with ventricular pacemakers. Pacemaker syndrome is a crucial factor in determining cost-effectiveness; however, difficulties in standardising diagnosis and measurement of severity make it difficult to quantify. Dual-chamber pacing is in common usage in the UK. Recipients are more likely to be younger. Insufficient evidence is currently available to inform policy on specific groups who may benefit most from pacing with dual-chamber devices. Further important research is underway. Outstanding research priorities include the economic evaluation of UKPACE studies of the classification, diagnosis and utility associated with pacemaker syndrome and evidence on the effectiveness of pacemakers in children.
Topics: Age Factors; Bradycardia; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Support Techniques; Heart Block; Humans; Markov Chains; Pacemaker, Artificial; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sick Sinus Syndrome
PubMed: 16266560
DOI: 10.3310/hta9430 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2010To assess whether or not the Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT) could improve detection of genital chlamydia, and whether it is more effective than current practice using... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether or not the Chlamydia Rapid Test (CRT) could improve detection of genital chlamydia, and whether it is more effective than current practice using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), in terms of the number of cases of chlamydia that are detected and treated and the proportion of partners identified and treated.
DATA SOURCES
Eleven electronic bibliographic databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched until November 2008, as well as relevant websites.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies of sexually active adolescent and adult women and men suspected of having or being tested for genital chlamydia infection were considered. The tests considered were the CRT and other comparator point-of-care tests identified, using a NAAT as a reference standard. Summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios for each model were reported as a median and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Effectiveness was measured in terms of the absolute numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives (and other positive cases missed) and true-negatives detected. Costs were considered from the health service's perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were used to examine the relative cost-effectiveness, and values of the major parameters of the models were varied in a sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies enrolling 8817 participants were included in the analysis. In the pooled estimates for the CRT, sensitivity (95% CI) was 80% (73% to 85%) for vaginal swab specimens and 77% (59% to 89%) for first void urine (FVU) specimens. Specificity was 99% (99% to 100%) for vaginal swab specimens and 99% (98% to 99%) for FVU specimens. In the pooled estimates for a comparator point-of-care test (Clearview Chlamydia), sensitivity (95% CI) was 52% (39% to 65%) for vaginal, cervical and urethral swab specimens combined, and 64% (47% to 77%) for cervical specimens alone. Specificity was 97% (94% to 100%) for vaginal, cervical and urethral swab specimens combined, and 97% (88% to 99%) for cervical specimens alone. The results of the economic evaluation showed that for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people, using the current practice of polymerase chain reaction testing would result in 12.63 people who were offered testing being correctly treated and having their sexual partners contacted, at a cost of 7070 pounds (for the whole cohort). For the CRT, the number being correctly treated would be 10.98, at a cost of 7180 pounds. For the Clearview Chlamydia test, the number correctly treated would be 7.14, at a cost of 7170 pounds. Both point-of-care tests were therefore more costly and less effective than current practice.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited evidence available suggests that NAATs are still the most accurate and cost-effective method for diagnosing chlamydia infection. There may be circumstances in which point-of-care tests could be provided in addition to existing NAAT services, but there is currently little evidence on point-of-care methods in such settings. Robust evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for different types of samples is also still required, as are studies evaluating clinical effectiveness outcomes for these tests in comparison with NAATs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Chlamydia Infections; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Male; Patient Preference; Point-of-Care Systems; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 20557810
DOI: 10.3310/hta14290 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2008To estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia and strabismus in children aged up to 4-5 years, also identifying the major areas of uncertainty and so... (Review)
Review
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4-5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia and strabismus in children aged up to 4-5 years, also identifying the major areas of uncertainty and so inform future research priorities in this disease area.
DATA SOURCES
Major electronic databases were searched in January 2006.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic literature reviews were undertaken to determine the prevalence and natural history, the screening methods, the effectiveness of treatment options and health-related quality of life issues relating to amblyopia and strabismus. The review of treatment interventions was restricted to high-quality reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. The data derived from the review informed the structure and implementation of the decision-analytic model.
RESULTS
The amblyopia screening model was analysed in detail to estimate the cost and effects of six alternative screening options comprising screening at different ages (3, 4 and 5 years) and using alternative sets of tests (visual acuity testing and the cover tests, with and without autorefraction). The reference case results showed that screening programmes that included autorefraction dominated screening programmes without autorefraction. Analyses based on the cost per case of amblyopia prevented showed screening at either 3 or 4 years prevented additional cases at a low absolute cost (3000-6000 pounds sterling). However, when these results were extrapolated to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the reference case analysis found that no form of screening is likely to be cost-effective at currently accepted values of a QALY. The wide-ranging sensitivity analyses found that the results were robust to most parameter changes. The only parameter that radically affected the results was the utility effect of loss of vision in one eye. No direct evidence of a utility effect was identified and the reference case assumed no effect. When a small effect is assumed (a reduction in utility of 2%), the incremental cost per QALY gained becomes extremely attractive for screening at both 3 and at 4 years. The expected value of perfect information was shown to be large when the unilateral vision loss utility parameter was allowed to vary, but not when it was kept constant at zero.
CONCLUSIONS
The results show that the cost-effectiveness of screening for amblyopia is dependent on the long-term utility effects of unilateral vision loss. There is limited evidence on any such effect, although our subjective interpretation of the available literature is that the utility effects are likely to be minimal. Any utility study investigating such effects would need to be careful to avoid introducing bias. The reference case model did not represent potential treatment-related utility effects, primarily due to an increased probability of treated children being bullied at school. The evidence indicates that this may be a problem, and additional sensitivity analyses show that small utility decrements from bullying would improve the cost-effectiveness of early screening significantly. A prospective study of the utility effects of bullying would usefully inform the analysis, although such a study would need to be carefully planned in order to distinguish whether the overall incidence of bullying decreases with reduced school-age treatment, or whether it is displaced to other children.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Prevalence; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Strabismus; Vision Screening
PubMed: 18513466
DOI: 10.3310/hta12250