scholarly journals Acupuncture for chronic pain and depression in primary care: a programme of research

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh MacPherson ◽  
Andrew Vickers ◽  
Martin Bland ◽  
David Torgerson ◽  
Mark Corbett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Osteoarthritis Of The Knee ◽  
High Quality

BackgroundThere has been an increase in the utilisation of acupuncture in recent years, yet the evidence base is insufficiently well established to be certain about its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Addressing the questions related to the evidence base will reduce uncertainty and help policy- and decision-makers with regard to whether or not wider access is appropriate and provides value for money.AimOur aim was to establish the most reliable evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic pain by drawing on relevant evidence, including recent high-quality trials, and to develop fresh evidence on acupuncture for depression. To extend the evidence base we synthesised the results of published trials using robust systematic review methodology and conducted a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of acupuncture for depression.Methods and resultsWe synthesised the evidence from high-quality trials of acupuncture for chronic pain, consisting of musculoskeletal pain related to the neck and low back, osteoarthritis of the knee, and headache and migraine, involving nearly 18,000 patients. In an individual patient data (IPD) pairwise meta-analysis, acupuncture was significantly better than both sham acupuncture (p < 0.001) and usual care (p < 0.001) for all conditions. Using network meta-analyses, we compared acupuncture with other physical therapies for osteoarthritis of the knee. In both an analysis of all available evidence and an analysis of a subset of better-quality trials, using aggregate-level data, we found acupuncture to be one of the more effective therapies. We developed new Bayesian methods for analysing multiple individual patient-level data sets to evaluate heterogeneous continuous outcomes. An accompanying cost-effectiveness analysis found transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to be cost-effective for osteoarthritis at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year when all trials were synthesised. When the analysis was restricted to trials of higher quality with adequate allocation concealment, acupuncture was cost-effective. In a RCT of acupuncture or counselling compared with usual care for depression, in which half the patients were also experiencing comorbid pain, we found acupuncture and counselling to be clinically effective and acupuncture to be cost-effective. For patients in whom acupuncture is inappropriate or unavailable, counselling is cost-effective.ConclusionWe have provided the most robust evidence from high-quality trials on acupuncture for chronic pain. The synthesis of high-quality IPD found that acupuncture was more effective than both usual care and sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is one of the more clinically effective physical therapies for osteoarthritis and is also cost-effective if only high-quality trials are analysed. When all trials are analysed, TENS is cost-effective. Promising clinical and economic evidence on acupuncture for depression needs to be extended to other contexts and settings. For the conditions we have investigated, the drawing together of evidence on acupuncture from this programme of research has substantially reduced levels of uncertainty. We have identified directions for further research. Our research also provides a valuable basis for considering the potential role of acupuncture as a referral option in health care and enabling providers and policy-makers to make decisions based on robust sources of evidence.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN63787732.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
Lorraine Green ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Joy Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals The Stroke Prevention Programme: a programme of research to inform optimal stroke prevention in primary care

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-290
Author(s):  
Kate Fletcher ◽  
Jonathan Mant ◽  
Richard McManus ◽  
Richard Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
History Of ◽  
General Practices

BackgroundThe management of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in community populations is suboptimal. The aim of this programme was to explore the role of three approaches [use of a ‘polypill’; self-management of hypertension; and more intensive targets for blood pressure (BP) lowering after stroke] to improve prevention of CV disease (CVD) in the community.Research questions(1) Is it more cost-effective to titrate treatments to target levels of cholesterol and BP or to use fixed doses of statins and BP-lowering agents (polypill strategy)? (2) Will telemonitoring and self-management improve BP control in people on treatment for hypertension or with a history of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in primary care and are they cost-effective? (3) In people with a history of stroke/TIA, can intensive BP-lowering targets be achieved in a primary care setting and what impact will this have on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness?DesignMixed methods, comprising three randomised controlled trials (RCTs); five cost-effectiveness analyses; qualitative studies; analysis of electronic general practice data; a screening study; a systematic review; and a questionnaire study.SettingUK general practices, predominantly from the West Midlands and the east of England.ParticipantsAdults registered with participating general practices. Inclusion criteria varied from study to study.InterventionsA polypill – a fixed-dose combination pill containing three antihypertensive medicines and simvastatin – compared with current practice and with optimal implementation of national guidelines; self-monitoring of BP with self-titration of medication, compared with usual care; and an intensive target for systolic BP of < 130 mmHg or a 10 mmHg reduction if baseline BP is < 140 mmHg, compared with a target of < 140 mmHg.ResultsFor patients known to be at high risk of CVD, treatment as per guidelines was the most cost-effective strategy. For people with unknown CV risk aged ≥ 50 years, offering a polypill is cost-effective [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8115 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] compared with a strategy of screening and treating according to national guidelines. Both results were sensitive to the cost of the polypill. Self-management in people with uncontrolled hypertension led to a 5.4 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 8.5 mmHg] reduction in systolic BP at 1 year, compared with usual care. It was cost-effective for men (ICER of £1624 per QALY) and women (ICER of £4923 per QALY). In people with stroke and other high-risk groups, self-management led to a 9.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.7 to 12.7 mmHg) reduction in systolic BP at 1 year compared with usual care and dominated (lower cost and better outcome) usual care. Aiming for the more intensive BP target after stroke led to a 2.9 mmHg (95% CI 0.2 to 5.7 mmHg) greater reduction in BP and dominated the 140 mmHg target.ConclusionsPotential for a polypill needs to be further explored in RCTs. Self-management should be offered to people with poorly controlled BP. Management of BP in the post-stroke population should focus on achieving a < 140 mmHg target.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN17585681, ISRCTN87171227 and ISRCTN29062286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme. Additional funding was provided by the NIHR National School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Career Development Fellowship and the Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

scholarly journals Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (69) ◽  
pp. 1-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristan Snowsill ◽  
Huiqin Yang ◽  
Ed Griffin ◽  
Linda Long ◽  
Jo Varley-Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Mortality ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cochrane Library

BackgroundDiagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.ObjectivesTo estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.Data sourcesBibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.MethodsClinical effectiveness – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness – an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.ResultsClinical effectiveness – 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness – screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60–75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.LimitationsClinical effectiveness – the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness – a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.ConclusionsLDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.Future workClinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Improving the self-management of chronic pain: COping with persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research in Self-management (COPERS)

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie JC Taylor ◽  
Dawn Carnes ◽  
Kate Homer ◽  
Tamar Pincus ◽  
Brennan C Kahan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Social Integration ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Management Support

BackgroundChronic musculoskeletal pain is a common problem that is difficult to treat. Self-management support interventions may help people to manage this condition better; however, there is limited evidence showing that they improve clinical outcomes. Our overarching research question was ‘Does a self-management support programme improve outcomes for people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain?’.AimTo develop, evaluate and test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theoretically grounded self-management support intervention for people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain.MethodsIn phase 1 we carried out two systematic reviews to synthesise the evidence base for self-management course content and delivery styles likely to help those with chronic pain. We also considered the psychological theories that might underpin behaviour change and pain management principles. Informed by these data we developed the Coping with persistent Pain, Evaluation Research in Self-management (COPERS) intervention, a group intervention delivered over 3 days with a top-up session after 2 weeks. It was led by two trained facilitators: a health-care professional and a layperson with experience of chronic pain. To ensure that we measured the most appropriate outcomes we reviewed the literature on potential outcome domains and measures and consulted widely with patients, tutors and experts. In a feasibility study we demonstrated that we could deliver the COPERS intervention in English and, to increase the generalisability of our findings, also in Sylheti for the Bangladeshi community. In phase 2 we ran a randomised controlled trial to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding the COPERS intervention to a best usual care package (usual care plus a relaxation CD and a pain toolkit leaflet). We recruited adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain largely from primary care and musculoskeletal physiotherapy services in two localities: east London and Coventry/Warwickshire. We collected follow-up data at 12 weeks (self-efficacy only) and 6 and 12 months. Our primary outcome was pain-related disability (Chronic Pain Grade disability subscale) at 12 months. We also measured costs, health utility (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions), anxiety, depression [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)], coping, pain acceptance and social integration. Data on the use of NHS services by participants were extracted from NHS electronic records.ResultsWe recruited 703 participants with a mean age of 60 years (range 19–94 years); 81% were white and 67% were female. Depression and anxiety symptoms were common, with mean HADS depression and anxiety scores of 7.4 [standard deviation (SD) 4.1] and 9.2 (SD 4.6), respectively. Intervention participants received 85% of the course content. At 12 months there was no difference between treatment groups in our primary outcome of pain-related disability [difference –1.0 intervention vs. control, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.9 to 3.0]. However, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, pain acceptance and social integration all improved more in the intervention group at 6 months. At 1 year these differences remained for depression (–0.7, 95% CI –1.2 to –0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2). The COPERS intervention had a high probability (87%) of being cost-effective compared with usual care at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.ConclusionsAlthough the COPERS intervention did not affect our primary outcome of pain-related disability, it improved psychological well-being and is likely to be cost-effective according to current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. The COPERS intervention could be used as a substitute for less well-evidenced (and more expensive) pain self-management programmes. Effective interventions to improve hard outcomes in chronic pain patients, such as disability, are still needed.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN22714229.FundingThe project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals A systematic review, evidence synthesis and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness, safety and acceptability of interventions to prevent postnatal depression

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (37) ◽  
pp. 1-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Jane Morrell ◽  
Paul Sutcliffe ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
John Stevens ◽  
Alison Scope ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Postnatal Care ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundPostnatal depression (PND) is a major depressive disorder in the year following childbirth, which impacts on women, their infants and their families. A range of interventions has been developed to prevent PND.ObjectivesTo (1) evaluate the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability and safety of antenatal and postnatal interventions for pregnant and postnatal women to prevent PND; (2) apply rigorous methods of systematic reviewing of quantitative and qualitative studies, evidence synthesis and decision-analytic modelling to evaluate the preventive impact on women, their infants and their families; and (3) estimate cost-effectiveness.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases (from inception to July 2013) in December 2012, and we were updated by electronic alerts until July 2013.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. All universal, selective and indicated preventive interventions for pregnant women and women in the first 6 postnatal weeks were included. All outcomes were included, focusing on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), diagnostic instruments and infant outcomes. The quantitative evidence was synthesised using network meta-analyses (NMAs). A mathematical model was constructed to explore the cost-effectiveness of interventions contained within the NMA for EPDS values.ResultsFrom 3072 records identified, 122 papers (86 trials) were included in the quantitative review. From 2152 records, 56 papers (44 studies) were included in the qualitative review. The results were inconclusive. The most beneficial interventions appeared to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care [as shown by the mean 12-month EPDS score difference of –1.43 (95% credible interval –4.00 to 1.36)], person-centred approach (PCA)-based and cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention (universal), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT)-based intervention and education on preparing for parenting (selective), promoting parent–infant interaction, peer support, IPT-based intervention and PCA-based and CBT-based intervention (indicated). Women valued seeing the same health worker, the involvement of partners and access to several visits from a midwife or health visitor trained in person-centred or cognitive–behavioural approaches. The most cost-effective interventions were estimated to be midwifery redesigned postnatal care (universal), PCA-based intervention (indicated) and IPT-based intervention in the sensitivity analysis (indicated), although there was considerable uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for efficacy data was in excess of £150M for each population. Given the EVPPI values, future trials assessing the relative efficacies of promising interventions appears to represent value for money.LimitationsIn the NMAs, some trials were omitted because they could not be connected to the main network of evidence or did not provide EPDS scores. This may have introduced reporting or selection bias. No adjustment was made for the lack of quality of some trials. Although we appraised a very large number of studies, much of the evidence was inconclusive.ConclusionsInterventions warrant replication within randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Several interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty.Future work recommendationsSeveral interventions appear to be cost-effective relative to usual care, but this is subject to considerable uncertainty. Future research conducting RCTs to establish which interventions are most clinically effective and cost-effective should be considered.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003273.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of anogenital warts: systematic review and economic evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Thurgar ◽  
Samantha Barton ◽  
Charlotta Karner ◽  
Steven J Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Anogenital Warts ◽  
Ablative Techniques ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundTypically occurring on the external genitalia, anogenital warts (AGWs) are benign epithelial skin lesions caused by human papillomavirus infection. AGWs are usually painless but can be unsightly and physically uncomfortable, and affected people might experience psychological distress. The evidence base on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for AGWs is limited.ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments for AGWs and to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) were searched from inception (or January 2000 for Web of Science) to September 2014. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify potentially relevant studies. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing and planned studies.Review methodsA systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out according to standard methods and a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) undertaken. The model implemented for each outcome was that with the lowest deviance information criterion. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model structure was informed through a systematic review of the economic literature and in consultation with clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the MTC. Costs were obtained from the literature and standard UK sources.ResultsOf 4232 titles and abstracts screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness, 60 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 19 interventions were included. Analysis by MTC indicated that ablative techniques were typically more effective than topical interventions at completely clearing AGWs at the end of treatment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (Condyline®, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Warticon®solution, Stiefel Laboratories Ltd) was found to be the most effective topical treatment evaluated. Networks for other outcomes included fewer treatments, which restrict conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In total, 84 treatment strategies were assessed using the economic model. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution first line followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) laser therapy second line if AGWs did not clear was most likely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources at a willingness to pay of £20,000–30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. The result was robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted.LimitationsLimited reporting in identified studies of baseline characteristics for the enrolled population generates uncertainty around the comparability of the study populations and therefore the generalisability of the results to clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were planned based on type, number and size of AGWs, all of which are factors thought to influence treatment effect. Lack of data on clinical effectiveness based on these characteristics precluded analysis of the differential effects of treatments in the subgroups of interest. Despite identification of 60 studies, most comparisons in the MTC are informed by only one RCT. Additionally, lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing key treatments, together with minimal reporting of results in some studies, precluded comprehensive analysis of all treatments for AGWs.ConclusionsThe results generated by the MTC are in agreement with consensus opinion that ablative techniques are clinically more effective at completely clearing AGWs after treatment. However, the evidence base informing the MTC is limited. A head-to-head RCT that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of interventions used in clinical practice would help to discern the potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual treatments. The results of the economic analysis suggest that podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution is likely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment option. More expensive effective treatments, such as CO2laser therapy or surgery, may represent cost-effective second-line treatment options. No treatment and podophyllin are unlikely to be considered cost-effective treatment options. There is uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of treatment with imiquimod, trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005457.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (71) ◽  
pp. 1-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Wailoo ◽  
Emma S Hock ◽  
Matt Stevenson ◽  
Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽  
Andrew Rawdin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Treatment Protocols ◽  
Remission Rates ◽  
Established Disease ◽  
Target Treatment

Background Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol. Objective To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care. Data sources Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016. Review methods A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies. Results Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease. Limitations TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias. Future work Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients). Conclusion In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of an education and activation program for patients with acute and subacute shoulder complaints compared to usual care

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camiel De Bruijn ◽  
Marielle Goossens ◽  
Rob de Bie ◽  
Andre Ament ◽  
Jacques Geraets ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Bootstrap Analysis ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effect

Objectives: Shoulder complaints (SCs) constitute the second largest group of musculoskeletal disorders after low back pain. The economic burden in terms of costs of healthcare use and costs due to work absenteeism underlines the need for a cost-effectiveness analysis of the interventions involved. The education and activation program (EAP) is a newly developed early intervention to prevent the development of chronic SCs. A cost-effectiveness analysis should provide more information on the effect of an EAP on total costs related to SCs.Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of the EAP in addition to usual care (EAP group) with that of usual care alone (UC group) in terms of preventing chronicity in patients with acute SCs. The aim of the cost-effectiveness analysis was to compare the observed difference in costs with the clinical effectiveness (i.e., patient-perceived recovery after 26 weeks), using bootstraps.Results: The comparison of total costs between treatment groups showed no significant (p = .077) difference after 26 weeks. The majority (82 percent) of the cost-effect pairs after bootstrap analysis were located in the northeast quadrant, suggesting more effect but at higher costs.Conclusions: In view of the clinical relevance of the clinical outcomes and the considerable costs needed to achieve this, it can be concluded that the EAP is currently not cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness

1999 ◽  
Vol 174 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony F. Lehman ◽  
Lisa Dixon ◽  
Jeffrey S. Hoch ◽  
Bruce Deforge ◽  
Eimer Kernan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Mental Illness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Assertive Community Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Homeless Persons ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Stable Housing

BackgroundHomelessness is a major public health problem among persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Cost-effective programmes that address this problem are needed.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an assertive community treatment (ACT) programme for these persons in Baltimore, Maryland.MethodsA total of 152 homeless persons with SMI were randomly allocated to either ACT or usual services. Direct treatment costs and effectiveness, represented by days of stable housing, were assessed.ResultsCompared with usual care, ACT costs were significantly lower for mental health in-patient days and mental health emergency room care, and significantly higher for mental health out-patient visits and treatment for substance misuse. ACT patients spent 31% more days in stable housing than those receiving usual care. ACT and usual services incurred $242 and $415 respectively in direct treatment costs per day of stable housing, an efficiency ratio of 0. 58 in favour of ACT. Patterns of care and costs varied according to race.ConclusionACT provides a cost-effective approach to reducing homelessness among persons with severe and persistent mental illnesses.

scholarly journals Early invasive strategy in senior patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: is it cost-effective? - a decision-analytic model and value of information analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e030678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julija Simpson ◽  
Mehdi Javanbakht ◽  
Luke Vale
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Information Analysis ◽  
Invasive Strategy ◽  
Early Invasive Strategy

BackgroundNon-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is the most common type of heart attack in the UK and it is becoming increasingly prevalent among older people. An early invasive treatment strategy may be effective and cost-effective for treating NSTEMI but evidence is currently unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of the early invasive strategy versus medical management in elderly patients with NSTEMI and to provide guidance for future research in this area.MethodsA long-term Markov state transition model was developed. Model inputs were systematically derived from a number of sources most appropriate to a UK relevant analysis, such as published studies and national routine data. Costs were estimated from the perspective of National Health Service and Personal Social Services. The model was developed using TreeAge Pro software. Based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a value of information analysis was carried out to establish the value of decision uncertainty both overall and for specific input parameters.ResultsIn 2017 UK £, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the early invasive strategy was £46 916 for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a probability of being cost-effective of 23% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/QALY. There was a considerable decision uncertainty with these results. The value of removing all this uncertainty was up to £1 920 000 annually. Most uncertainty related to clinical effectiveness parameters and the optimal study design to remove this uncertainty would be a randomised controlled trial.ConclusionBased on current evidence, the early invasive strategy is not likely to be cost-effective for elderly patients with NSTEMI. This conclusion should be interpreted with caution mainly due to the absence of NSTEMI-specific data and long-term clinical effectiveness estimates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document