The use of atraumatic restorative treatment in elderly patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Objectives: to assess elderly patients’ dental status and dental habits and compare the survival rates, impact on patients’ quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and a conventional treatment (CT) to restore carious lesions in an elderly population. Methods: In this randomised clinical trial, 99 independently living adults (65-90 yrs) with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or CT. Details of restored, missing and carious teeth were recorded and patients answered some questions about their oral hygiene and dental attendance habits. Direct and indirect costs were measured based on treatment time, materials and labour. Effectiveness was measured using restoration survival percentage after one year. The survival of restorations was assessed 6 months and one year after restoration placement by an independent examiner. Oralhealth related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed using the OHIP-14 at baseline and 2 months after treatment together with a global transition statement. Results: The patient sample comprised 46 (46.46%) male and 53 (53.54) female participants at baseline, with a mean age of 73.18 (SD=6.76). The mean DMFT of the entire sample was 27.10. Ninety patients and 268 restorations could be assessed after one year, 127 ART (46 patients) and 141 conventional restorations (44 patients). 93.7% and 97.2% of the restorations placed were considered successful in the ART and CT groups, respectively. The OHIP scores did not change dramatically 2 months after treatment, in either group. The global transition scale showed an improvement in overall oral health after treatment for the majority of patients. The ART were more cost-effective compared to the CT restorations. Conclusions: ART presented survival rates similar to CT after 1 year and was a more cost-effective alternative to treat the elderly.

At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery

Background: Elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) rates have been increasing worldwide, thus prompting obstetric discourse on the risks and benefits for the mother and infant. Yet, these increasing rates also have major economic implications for the health care system. Given the dearth of information on the cost-effectiveness related to mode of delivery, the aim of this paper was to perform an economic evaluation on the costs and short-term maternal health consequences associated with a trial of labour after one previous caesarean delivery compared with ERCD for low risk women in Ireland.Methods: Using a decision analytic model, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed where the measure of health gain was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a six-week time horizon. A review of international literature was conducted to derive representative estimates of adverse maternal health outcomes following a trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and ERCD. Delivery/procedure costs derived from primary data collection and combined both "bottom-up" and "top-down" costing estimations.Results: Maternal morbidities emerged in twice as many cases in the TOLAC group than the ERCD group. However, a TOLAC was found to be the most-effective method of delivery because it was substantially less expensive than ERCD ((sic)1,835.06 versus (sic)4,039.87 per women, respectively), and QALYs were modestly higher (0.84 versus 0.70). Our findings were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Conclusions: Clinicians need to be well informed of the benefits and risks of TOLAC among low risk women. Ideally, clinician-patient discourse would address differences in length of hospital stay and postpartum recovery time. While it is premature advocate a policy of TOLAC across maternity units, the results of the study prompt further analysis and repeat iterations, encouraging future studies to synthesis previous research and new and relevant evidence under a single comprehensive decision model.