scholarly journals The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (92) ◽  
pp. 1-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pawana Sharma ◽  
Dwayne Boyers ◽  
Neil Scott ◽  
Rodolfo Hernández ◽  
Cynthia Fraser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Unilateral Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Open Mesh

BackgroundsCurrent open mesh techniques for inguinal hernia repair have shown similar recurrence rates. However, chronic pain has been associated with Lichtenstein mesh repair, the most common surgical procedure for inguinal hernia in the UK. The position of the mesh is probably an important factor. The Lichtenstein method requires dissection of the inguinal wall and fixation of the mesh. In contrast, in the open preperitoneal approach the mesh is placed in the preperitoneal space and held in place with intra-abdominal pressure. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best open approach for repair of inguinal hernia.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open preperitoneal mesh repair compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia.Data sourcesWe searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register) from inception to November 2014 and contacted experts in the field.Review methodsEvidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared open preperitoneal mesh repair with Lichtenstein mesh repair for the treatment of inguinal hernia. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion. One reviewer completed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included studies, and two reviewers independently cross-checked the details extracted. Meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of open mesh procedures from a NHS health services perspective over a 25-year time horizon.ResultsTwelve RCTs involving 1568 participants were included. Participants who underwent open preperitoneal mesh repair returned to work and normal activities significantly earlier than those who underwent Lichtenstein mesh repair [mean difference –1.49 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.78 to –0.20 days]. Although no significant differences were observed between the two open approaches for incidence of pain [risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27], numbness (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.56), recurrences (Peto odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.52) or postoperative complications, fewer events were generally reported after open preperitoneal mesh repair. The results of the economic evaluation indicate that the open preperitoneal mesh repair was £256 less costly and improved health outcomes by 0.041 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair. The open preperitoneal procedure was the most efficient and dominant treatment strategy with a high (> 98%) probability of being cost-effectiveness for the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 for a QALY. Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. However, the magnitude of cost saving or QALY gain was sensitive to some model assumptions.LimitationsOverall, the included trials were of small sample size (mean 130.7 participants) and at high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analyses results demonstrated significant statistical heterogeneity for most of the assessed outcomes.ConclusionsOpen preperitoneal mesh repair appears to be a safe and efficacious alternative to Lichtenstein mesh repair. Further research is required to determine the long-term effects of these surgical procedures as well as the most effective open preperitoneal repair technique in terms of both clinical efficacy and costs.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013510.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix – DySIS, LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and Niris Imaging System: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. i-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Wade ◽  
E Spackman ◽  
M Corbett ◽  
S Walker ◽  
K Light ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Imaging System ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Higher Sensitivity

BackgroundWomen in England (aged 25–64 years) are invited for cervical screening every 3–5 years to assess for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer. CIN is a term describing abnormal changes in the cells of the cervix, ranging from CIN1 to CIN3, which is precancerous. Colposcopy is used to visualise the cervix. Three adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the cervix have been included in this assessment: Dynamic Spectral Imaging System (DySIS), the LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and the Niris Imaging System.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix for patients referred for colposcopy through the NHS Cervical Screening Programme.Data sourcesSixteen electronic databases [Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), BIOSIS Previews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database; Inspec, Inside Conferences, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), PASCAL, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Science Citation Index (SCI) – Conference Proceedings], and two clinical trial registries [ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials (CCT)] were searched to September–October 2011.Review methodsStudies comparing DySIS, LuViva or Niris with conventional colposcopy were sought; a narrative synthesis was undertaken. A decision-analytic model was developed, which measured outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were evaluated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services with a time horizon of 50 years.ResultsSix studies were included: two studies of DySIS, one study of LuViva and three studies of Niris. The DySIS studies were well reported and had a low risk of bias; they found higher sensitivity with DySIS (both the DySISmap alone and in combination with colposcopy) than colposcopy alone for identifying CIN2+ disease, although specificity was lower with DySIS. The studies of LuViva and Niris were poorly reported and had limitations, which indicated that their results were subject to a high risk of bias; the results of these studies cannot be considered reliable. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that both DySIS treatment options are less costly and more effective than colposcopy alone in the overall weighted population; these results were robust to the ranges tested in the sensitivity analysis. DySISmap alone was more costly and more effective in several of the referral groups but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was never higher than £1687 per QALY. DySIS plus colposcopy was less costly and more effective in all reasons for referral. Only indicative analyses were carried out on Niris and LuViva and no conclusions could be made on their cost-effectiveness.LimitationsThe assessment is limited by the available evidence on the new technologies, natural history of the disease area and current treatment patterns.ConclusionsDySIS, particularly in combination with colposcopy, has higher sensitivity than colposcopy alone. There is no reliable evidence on the clinical effectiveness of LuViva and Niris. DySIS plus colposcopy appears to be less costly and more effective than both the DySISmap alone and colposcopy alone; these results were robust to the sensitivity analyses undertaken. Given the lack of reliable evidence on LuViva and Niris, no conclusions on their potential cost-effectiveness can be drawn. There is some uncertainty about how generalisable these findings will be to the population of women referred for colposcopy in the future, owing to the introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) triage test and uptake of the HPV vaccine.Study registrationPROSPERO Record CRD42011001614.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Contralateral surgical exploration during inguinal hernia repair in infants (HERNIIA trial): study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly M. A. Dreuning ◽  
Maurits W. van Tulder ◽  
Jasper V. Been ◽  
Maroeska M. Rovers ◽  
Jurgen C. de Graaff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Surgical Exploration ◽  
Contralateral Exploration ◽  
Unilateral Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background The incidence of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia (MCIH) is high in infants with an inguinal hernia (5–30%), with the highest risk in infants aged 6 months or younger. MCIH is associated with the risk of incarceration and necessitates a second operation. This might be avoided by contralateral exploration during primary surgery. However, contralateral exploration may be unnecessary, leads to additional operating time and costs and may result in additional complications of surgery and anaesthesia. Thus, there is no consensus whether contralateral exploration should be performed routinely. Methods The Hernia-Exploration-oR-Not-In-Infants-Analysis (HERNIIA) study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside to study the (cost-)effectiveness of contralateral exploration during unilateral hernia repair. Infants aged 6 months or younger who need to undergo primary unilateral hernia repair will be randomised to contralateral exploration or no contralateral exploration (n = 378 patients). Primary endpoint is the proportion of infants that need to undergo a second operation related to inguinal hernia within 1 year after primary repair. Secondary endpoints include (a) total duration of operation(s) (including anaesthesia time) and hospital admission(s); (b) complications of anaesthesia and surgery; and (c) participants’ health-related quality of life and distress and anxiety of their families, all assessed within 1 year after primary hernia repair. Statistical testing will be performed two-sided with α = .05 and according to the intention-to-treat principle. Logistic regression analysis will be performed adjusted for centre and possible confounders. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective and all relevant costs will be measured, valued and analysed. Discussion This study evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of contralateral surgical exploration during unilateral inguinal hernia repair in children younger than 6 months with a unilateral inguinal hernia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT03623893. Registered on August 9, 2018 Netherlands Trial Register NL7194. Registered on July 24, 2018 Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO) NL59817.029.18. Registered on July 3, 2018

scholarly journals Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (61) ◽  
pp. 1-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcela Haasova ◽  
Tristan Snowsill ◽  
Tracey Jones-Hughes ◽  
Louise Crathorne ◽  
Chris Cooper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Rejection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Graft Function ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Online Library

BackgroundEnd-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival.ObjectivesTo systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,®Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,®Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport®(Sandoz); Capexion®(Mylan); Modigraf®(Astellas Pharma); Perixis®(Accord Healthcare); Prograf®(Astellas Pharma); Tacni®(Teva); Vivadex®(Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,®Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,®Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip®(Zentiva), CellCept®(Roche Products), Myfenax®(Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,®Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,®Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation.Data sourcesClinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost).Review methodsTitles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death.ResultsThree randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000–30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000–30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000–30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC.LimitationsThe RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence.ConclusionsTAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000–30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000–30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Open Mesh Repair of Inguinal Hernia: A Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan Yin ◽  
Turun Song ◽  
Banghua Liao ◽  
Qian Luo ◽  
Zongguang Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Open Mesh Repair ◽  
Open Mesh

The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in hernia repair is still under debate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing open mesh repair of inguinal hernia with respect to incidence of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI). A literature search was conducted in databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis were conducted according to the recommendations by Cochrane collaboration. Nine randomized controlled trials were included. Incidence of surgical site infection was 39/1642 (2.38%) in the antibiotic group and 70/1676 (4.18%) in the control group. Antibiotics showed a protective effect in preventing SSI after mesh inguinal hernia repair (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.40–0.92, I2: 0%). Antibiotic prophylaxis did reduce the incidence of SSI in hernia patients undergoing mesh hernioplasty. The cost effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis needs further evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document