COST-EFFECTIVENESS IMPACTS CANCER CARE FUNDING DECISIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, EVIDENCE FROM 1998 TO 2008

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-486
Author(s):  
Zahra Ismail ◽  
Stuart J. Peacock ◽  
Laurel Kovacic ◽  
Jeffrey S. Hoch
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Nonparametric Tests ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Economic Evidence ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: The Priorities and Evaluation Committee (PEC) funding recommendations for new cancer drugs in British Columbia, Canada have been based on both clinical and economic evidence. The British Columbia Ministry of Health makes funding decisions. We assessed the association between cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs considered from 1998 to 2008 and the subsequent funding decisions.Methods: All proposals submitted to the PEC between 1998 and 2008 were reviewed, and the association between cost-effectiveness and funding decisions was examined by (i) using logistic regression to test the hypothesis that interventions with higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have a lower probability of receiving a positive funding decision and (ii) using parametric and nonparametric tests to determine if a statistically significant difference exists between the mean cost-effectiveness of funded versus not funded proposals. A sub-analysis was conducted to determine if the findings varied across different outcome measures.Results: Of the 149 proposals reviewed, 78 reported cost-effectiveness using various outcome measures. In the proposals that used life-years gained as the outcome (n = 22), a statistically significant difference of nearly $115,000 was observed between the mean ICERs for funded proposals ($42,006) and for unfunded proposals ($156,967). An odds ratio indicating higher ICERs have a lower probability of being funded was also found to be statistically significant (p < .05).Conclusions: Economic evidence appears to play a role in British Columbia cancer funding decisions from 1998 to 2008; other decision-making criteria may also have an important role in recommendations and subsequent funding decisions.

scholarly journals Scalable modEls of Community rehAbilitation for Individuals Recovering From COVID:19 reLated illnEss: A Longitudinal Service Evaluation Protocol—“SeaCole Cohort Evaluation”

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kelly ◽  
Aidan Innes ◽  
Marc Holl ◽  
Laura Mould ◽  
Susan Powell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Rehabilitation Programme ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Rehabilitation Service ◽  
Community Rehabilitation ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk

Introduction: High levels of physical, cognitive, and psychosocial impairments are anticipated for those recovering from the COVID-19. In the UK, ~50% of survivors will require additional rehabilitation. Despite this, there is currently no evidence-based guideline available in England and Wales that addresses the identification, timing and nature of effective interventions to manage the morbidity associated following COVID-19. It is now timely to accelerate the development and evaluation of a rehabilitation service to support patients and healthcare services. Nuffield Health have responded by configuring a scalable rehabilitation pathway addressing the immediate requirements for those recovering from COVID-19 in the community.Methods and Analysis: This long-term evaluation will examine the effectiveness of a 12-week community rehabilitation programme for COVID-19 patients who have been discharged following in-patient treatment. Consisting of two distinct 6-week phases; Phase 1 is an entirely remote service, delivered via digital applications. Phase 2 sees the same patients transition into a gym-based setting for supervised group-based rehabilitation. Trained rehabilitation specialists will coach patients across areas such as goal setting, exercise prescription, symptom management and emotional well-being. Outcomes will be collected at 0, 6, and 12 weeks and at 6- and 12-months. Primary outcome measures will assess changes in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and COVID-19 symptoms using EuroQol Five Dimension Five Level Version (EQ-5D-5L) and Dyspnea-12, respectively. Secondary outcome measures of the Duke Activity Status Questionnaire (DASI), 30 s sit to stand test, General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) will allow for the evaluation of outcomes, mediators and moderators of outcome, and cost-effectiveness of treatment.Discussion: This evaluation will investigate the immediate and long-term impact, as well as the cost effectiveness of a blended rehabilitation programme for COVID-19 survivors. This evaluation will provide a founding contribution to the literature, evaluating one of the first programmes of this type in the UK. The evaluation has international relevance, with the potential to show how a new model of service provision can support health services in the wake of COVID-19.Trial Registration: Current Trials ISRCTN ISRCTN14707226Web: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14707226

Correction of mildly dysplastic hips with periacetabular osteotomy demonstrates promising outcomes, achievement of correction goals, and excellent five-year survivorship

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (6_Supple_B) ◽  
pp. 16-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. T. Livermore ◽  
L. A. Anderson ◽  
M. B. Anderson ◽  
J. A. Erickson ◽  
C. L. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Periacetabular Osteotomy ◽  
Severe Dysplasia ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Mild Dysplasia ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Radiological Measurements ◽  
The Mean

Aims The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological measurements, and total hip arthroplasty (THA)-free survival in patients who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for mild, moderate, or severe developmental dysplasia of the hip. Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective study involving 336 patients (420 hips) who underwent PAO by a single surgeon at an academic centre. After exclusions, 124 patients (149 hips) were included. The preoperative lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) was used to classify the severity of dysplasia: 18° to 25° was considered mild (n = 20), 10° to 17° moderate (n = 66), and < 10° severe (n = 63). There was no difference in patient characteristics between the groups (all, p > 0.05). Pre- and postoperative radiological measurements were made. The National Institute of Health’s Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) outcome measures (physical function computerized adaptive test (PF CAT), Global Physical and Mental Health Scores) were collected. Failure was defined as conversion to THA or PF CAT scores < 40, and was assessed with Kaplan–Meier analysis. The mean follow-up was five years (2 to 10) ending in either failure or the latest contact with the patient. Results There was no significant difference in PROMs for moderate (p = 0.167) or severe (p = 0.708) groups compared with the mild dysplasia group. The numerical pain scores were between 2 and 3 units in all groups at the final follow-up (all, p > 0.05). There was no significant difference (all, p > 0.05) in the proportion of patients achieving target correction for the LCEA between groups. The mean correction was 12° in the mild, 15° in the moderate (p = 0.135), and 23° in the severe group (p < 0.001). Failure-free survival at five years was 100% for mild, 79% for moderate, and 92% for severely dysplastic hips (p = 0.225). Conclusion Although requiring less correction than hips with moderate or severe dysplasia, we found PAO for mild dysplasia to be associated with promising PROMs, consistent with that of the general United States population, and excellent survivorship at five years. Future studies should compare these results with the outcome after arthroscopy of the hip in patients with mild dysplasia. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):16–22.

Cost-Effectiveness of Skin Surveillance Through a Specialized Clinic for Patients at High Risk of Melanoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline G. Watts ◽  
Anne E. Cust ◽  
Scott W. Menzies ◽  
Graham J. Mann ◽  
Rachael L. Morton
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
High Risk Clinic

Purpose Clinical guidelines recommend that people at high risk of melanoma receive regular surveillance to improve survival through early detection. A specialized High Risk Clinic in Sydney, Australia was found to be effective for this purpose; however, wider implementation of this clinical service requires evidence of cost-effectiveness and data addressing potential overtreatment of suspicious skin lesions. Patients and Methods A decision-analytic model was built to compare the costs and benefits of specialized surveillance compared with standard care over a 10-year period, from a health system perspective. A high-risk standard care cohort was obtained using linked population data, comprising the Sax Institute’s 45 and Up cohort study, linked to Medicare Benefits Schedule claims data, the cancer registry, and hospital admissions data. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken for all model parameters. Results Specialized surveillance through the High Risk Clinic was both less expensive and more effective than standard care. The mean saving was A$6,828 (95% CI, $5,564 to $8,092) per patient, and the mean quality-adjusted life-year gain was 0.31 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.35). The main drivers of the differences were detection of melanoma at an earlier stage resulting in less extensive treatment and a lower annual mean excision rate for suspicious lesions in specialized surveillance (0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91) compared with standard care (2.55; 95% CI, 2.34 to 2.76). The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Specialized surveillance was a cost-effective strategy for the management of individuals at high risk of melanoma. There were also fewer invasive procedures in specialized surveillance compared with standard care in the community.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Candesartan Therapy in Comparison to Candesartan-Amlodipine Therapy on Hypertensive Outpatients

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (22) ◽  
pp. 3837-3840
Author(s):  
Faridah Baroroh ◽  
Andriana Sari ◽  
Noviana Masruroh
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hypertension Therapy ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND: he achievement of optimal hypertension therapy requires cost-effective medicine. The treatment of hypertensive patients needs for long-term medication have made medical costs a prime issue in health economics. AIM: This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of candesartan therapy compared to candesartan-amlodipine therapy on hypertensive outpatients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study that compares candesartan therapy to candesartan-amlodipine therapy at a public hospital from payers’ perspective. The outcome is the percentage of targeted blood pressure decrease after three months of therapy. The cost effectiveness analysis uses the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) based on the ratio of cost difference to the outcome in both therapy groups. RESULTS: As many as 111 patients participated in this research, comprising 40 candesartan therapy patients and 71 patients with the combination of candesartan-amlodipine. Of the participants, 63.96% were female, 57.66% were aged 60 or older, and 56.32% had diabetes mellitus as the most common complication. Results show that the average direct medical cost per patient for a therapy of three months with candesartan was IDR 1,050,536 ± 730,007 and IDR 760,040 ± 614,290 for a candesartan-amlodipine therapy. The mean decline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure under candesartan therapy is less than that of candesartan-amlodipine, although without any significant difference (p > 0.05). It follows that the effectiveness of candesartan (85%) is greater than that of the candesartan-amlodipine combination (84.50%). Candesartan therapy is thereby more cost-effective with an ICER value of IDR 580,993/%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension therapy by candesartan is more cost-effective than candesartan-amlodipine therapy with a cost addition of IDR 580,993.

scholarly journals O04 Clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection for hip OA: a randomised controlled trial (HIT)

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Paskins ◽  
Kieran Bromley ◽  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Gemma Hughes ◽  
Emily Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Evidence of the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis (OA) is limited. The HIT trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride combined with best current treatment (BCT) with (i) BCT alone (primary objective) and (ii) an USGI of 5ml 1% lidocaine only combined with BCT (EudraCT:2014-003412-37). Methods This was a pragmatic, three-parallel arm, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in adults with moderate-severe painful hip OA recruited from community musculoskeletal services and primary care. Participants were randomised equally to: (1) BCT alone, (2) BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine, or (3) BCT plus USGI lidocaine only. Outcomes were collected postally at 2 weeks, 2, 4 and 6 months. The primary outcome was self-reported current hip pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS)) over 6 months (repeated measures analysis). Secondary outcomes included function (WOMAC), and, for cost-utility analysis, general health (EQ-5D-5L) and healthcare utilisation. 204 participants were required to detect a minimum difference of 1 point in mean pain NRS score between arms (1) and (2) with 80% power (5% two-tailed significance level, 15% loss to follow-up). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results 199 participants were recruited (43% male, mean age 63 years), 67 to arm (1) and 66 each to arms (2) and (3). Primary outcome completion rates were 95% at 2 weeks, 94% at 2 months, 90% at 4 months, and 89% at 6 months. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity (0-10 NRS) over 6 months was seen with BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine compared with BCT alone: -1.43 (95%CI -2.15,-0.72). Greater mean improvement in pain intensity was seen at 2 weeks (-3.17; -4.06,-2.28) and 2 months (-1.81;-2.71,-0.92), but not at 4 (-0.86;-1.78,0.05) or 6 months (0.12; -0.80,1.04). Participants treated with BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine compared with BCT alone had greater mean improvement in function (WOMAC-F -5.47;(-9.41,-1.53)) over 6 months. There was no statistically significant difference in hip pain intensity over 6 months between BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine compared with BCT plus USGI lidocaine (-0.52;-1.21,0.18). There was one possible treatment-related serious adverse event: a participant with no signs of infection at randomisation died from endocarditis four months after USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine. BCT plus USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine was less costly (mean cost difference per participant £-161.59) and associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than BCT only over 6 months (mean difference 0.0477 (0.0257,0.0699). Conclusion USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine plus BCT leads to greater improvements in pain and function over 6 months in adults with hip OA than BCT alone, and was highly cost-effective. There was no significant difference in hip pain intensity between the groups receiving USGI triamcinolone/lidocaine and USGI lidocaine only, raising the possibility of a degree of placebo effect. Disclosures Z. Paskins None. K. Bromley None. M. Lewis None. G. Hughes None. E. Hughes None. A. Cherrington None. A. Hall None. M. Holden None. R. Oppong None. J. Kigozi None. K. Stevenson None. A. Menon None. P. Roberts None. G. Peat None. C. Jinks None. N.E. Foster None. C.D. Mallen None. E. Roddy None.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 798-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Reeves ◽  
Christopher Doran ◽  
Mariko Carey ◽  
Emilie Cameron ◽  
Robert Sanson-Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
First Degree Relatives ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost–utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Lymphatic Embolization for Management of Plastic Bronchitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamaal L. Benjamin ◽  
Jack Rychik ◽  
Jordan A. Johnstone ◽  
Gregory J. Nadolski ◽  
Maxim Itkin
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Plastic Bronchitis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Mean

Background: Plastic bronchitis is a dreaded complication of single ventricle physiology occurring following palliation via Fontan procedure. Medical management of plastic bronchitis often fails, requiring heart transplantation. Percutaneous lymphatic embolization is an emerging treatment for plastic bronchitis. Methods: To determine the cost-effectiveness of competing management strategies, a modified Markov model was constructed with patients transiting through treatments—medical management, lymphatic embolization, or heart transplantation from a hospital system perspective. Health state transitions were modeled using an institutional review board–approved retrospective review of the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania’s plastic bronchitis cohort. Medication pricing data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample. Differences in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a five-year horizon for each group were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was then calculated. Results: The mean cost of lymphatic embolization from procedure performance was US$340,941, US$385,841 for heart transplantation, and US$594,520 for medical management. The mean quality-adjusted survival of lymphatic embolization yielded an additional 0.66 QALYs ( P < .03) relative to heart transplantation and 1.3 ( P < .0001) relative to medical management. Orthotopic heart transplantation yielded an additional 0.66 QALYs ( P = .06) when comparing heart transplantation to medical management. Compared to medical management, lymphatic embolization generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$192,105. Similarly, compared to heart transplantation, lymphatic embolization yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$68,030. Conclusions: Of the available plastic bronchitis treatments, with a willingness to pay of US$150,000, lymphatic embolization produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio within the bounds considered to be cost-effective, potentially causing financial benefits to the health system.

OP535 Cost-Effectiveness Of Internet-Based HIV Screening In Men Who Have Sex With Men in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Wei Zhang ◽  
José de Anda ◽  
Michael Irvine ◽  
Hsiu-Ju Chang ◽  
Mark Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sexual History ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Hiv Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Sex With Men

IntroductionIn Canada, individuals test for HIV commonly through clinic-based screening services (CBSS). However, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) may face barriers accessing such services due to, for example, feeling discomfort disclosing their sexual history or fearing judgment from healthcare providers. To reduce barriers and increase uptake and frequency of screening for sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control implemented an internet-based screening service, GetCheckedOnline.com (GCO), in September 2014 in Vancouver, Canada. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of GCO at different uptake scenarios compared to CBSS in Vancouver GBMSM.MethodsCost-utility analyses were conducted from a healthcare payer's perspective using an established dynamic GBMSM HIV compartmental model. The model estimated the probability of becoming infected with HIV, progressing through diagnosis, disease stages, and treatment over a 30-year time horizon. The base case assumed 4.7 percent uptake of GCO, and 74 percent of high-risk and 44 percent of low-risk infrequent testers becoming regular testers in five years. Scenario analyses tested GCO 10 and 15 percent uptakes.ResultsCompared with the conventional CBSS alone, a 4.7 percent GCO uptake increased the costs by CAD90,059 (USD75,680; 95% confidence interval (CI): -CAD420,836, CAD273,987) and gained 3 (95% CI: 0, 6) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a 30-year time horizon. There was a 71 percent probability that GCO was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD50,000 (USD42,000) per QALY. The results were consistent in other two uptake scenarios.ConclusionsExpanding HIV screening for GBMSM through increasing uptake of GCO is a cost-effective alternative to expanding the conventional CBSS. We noted that difference in total costs might be smaller if a battery of STI tests is considered, which in turn may affect our cost-effectiveness estimate. For the next phase of cost-utility analysis, we will expand our model to include testing for other STIs.

scholarly journals Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease:

Neurosurgery ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared D. Ament ◽  
Zhuo Yang ◽  
Pierce Nunley ◽  
Marcus B. Stone ◽  
Darrin Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health System ◽  
Degenerative Disc Disease ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Disc Disease ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Degenerative Disc ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion. OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years. METHODS: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate. RESULTS: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was −$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (−$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.

scholarly journals Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k1332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Santer ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Nick A Francis ◽  
Beth Stuart ◽  
Kate Rumsby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Topical Corticosteroid ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Bath Additives

AbstractObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children.DesignPragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups.Setting96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England.Participants483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded.InterventionsParticipants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed.Results483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval −0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects.ConclusionsThis trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document