65 resultados para cost effectiveness analysis
Resumo:
Comparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance.
Resumo:
Background: A full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) is a common retinal condition associated with impaired vision. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that surgery, by means of pars plana vitrectomy and post-operative intraocular tamponade with gas, is effective for stage 2, 3 and 4 FTMH. Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling has been introduced as an additional surgical manoeuvre to increase the success of the surgery; i.e. increase rates of hole closure and visual improvement. However, little robust evidence exists supporting the superiority of ILM peeling compared with no-peeling techniques. The purpose of FILMS (Full-thickness macular hole and Internal Limiting Membrane peeling Study) is to determine whether ILM peeling improves the visual function, the anatomical closure of FTMH, and the quality of life of patients affected by this disorder, and the cost-effectiveness of the surgery. Methods/Design: Patients with stage 2-3 idiopathic FTMH of less or equal than 18 months duration (based on symptoms reported by the participant) and with a visual acuity = 20/40 in the study eye will be enrolled in this FILMS from eight sites across the UK and Ireland. Participants will be randomised to receive combined cataract surgery (phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation) and pars plana vitrectomy with postoperative intraocular tamponade with gas, with or without ILM peeling. The primary outcome is distance visual acuity at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include distance visual acuity at 3 and 24 months, near visual acuity at 3, 6, and 24 months, contrast sensitivity at 6 months, reading speed at 6 months, anatomical closure of the macular hole at each time point (1, 3, 6, and 24 months), health related quality of life (HRQOL) at six months, costs to the health service and the participant, incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and adverse events. Discussion: FILMS will provide high quality evidence onthe role of ILM peeling in FTMH surgery. © 2008 Lois et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Resumo:
Objectives: To assess whether open angle glaucoma (OAG) screening meets the UK National Screening Committee criteria, to compare screening strategies with case finding, to estimate test parameters, to model estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness, and to identify areas for future research. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005. Review methods: Screening strategies were developed by wide consultation. Markov submodels were developed to represent screening strategies. Parameter estimates were determined by systematic reviews of epidemiology, economic evaluations of screening, and effectiveness (test accuracy, screening and treatment). Tailored highly sensitive electronic searches were undertaken. Results: Most potential screening tests reviewed had an estimated specificity of 85% or higher. No test was clearly most accurate, with only a few, heterogeneous studies for each test. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified. Based on two treatment RCTs, early treatment reduces the risk of progression. Extrapolating from this, and assuming accelerated progression with advancing disease severity, without treatment the mean time to blindness in at least one eye was approximately 23 years, compared to 35 years with treatment. Prevalence would have to be about 3-4% in 40 year olds with a screening interval of 10 years to approach cost-effectiveness. It is predicted that screening might be cost-effective in a 50-year-old cohort at a prevalence of 4% with a 10-year screening interval. General population screening at any age, thus, appears not to be cost-effective. Selective screening of groups with higher prevalence (family history, black ethnicity) might be worthwhile, although this would only cover 6% of the population. Extension to include other at-risk cohorts (e.g. myopia and diabetes) would include 37% of the general population, but the prevalence is then too low for screening to be considered cost-effective. Screening using a test with initial automated classification followed by assessment by a specialised optometrist, for test positives, was more cost-effective than initial specialised optometric assessment. The cost-effectiveness of the screening programme was highly sensitive to the perspective on costs (NHS or societal). In the base-case model, the NHS costs of visual impairment were estimated as £669. If annual societal costs were £8800, then screening might be considered cost-effective for a 40-year-old cohort with 1% OAG prevalence assuming a willingness to pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of lesser importance were changes to estimates of attendance for sight tests, incidence of OAG, rate of progression and utility values for each stage of OAG severity. Cost-effectiveness was not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of screening tests within the ranges observed. However, a highly specific test is required to reduce large numbers of false-positive referrals. The findings that population screening is unlikely to be cost-effective are based on an economic model whose parameter estimates have considerable uncertainty, in particular, if rate of progression and/or costs of visual impairment are higher than estimated then screening could be cost-effective. Conclusions: While population screening is not cost-effective, the targeted screening of high-risk groups may be. Procedures for identifying those at risk, for quality assuring the programme, as well as adequate service provision for those screened positive would all be needed. Glaucoma detection can be improved by increasing attendance for eye examination, and improving the performance of current testing by either refining practice or adding in a technology-based first assessment, the latter being the more cost-effective option. This has implications for any future organisational changes in community eye-care services. Further research should aim to develop and provide quality data to populate the economic model, by conducting a feasibility study of interventions to improve detection, by obtaining further data on costs of blindness, risk of progression and health outcomes, and by conducting an RCT of interventions to improve the uptake of glaucoma testing. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2007. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of conventional treatment using partial dentures with functionally orientated treatment to replace missing teeth for partially dentate elders using a randomised controlled clinical trial.
BACKGROUND: In many countries, including the Republic of Ireland, the only publically funded treatment option offered to partially dentate older patients is a removable partial denture. However, evidence suggests that these removable prostheses are unpopular with patients and can potentially increase the risk of further dental disease and subsequent tooth loss.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourty-four partially dentate patients aged 65 years and older were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms of the study. The conventional treatment group received removable partial dentures to replace all missing natural teeth. The functionally orientated group was restored to a Shortened Dental Arch (SDA) of 10 occluding contacts using resin-bonded bridgework (RBB). The costs associated with each treatment were recorded. Effectiveness was measured in terms of the impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) using OHIP-14.
RESULTS: Both groups reported improvements in OHRQoL 1 month after completion of treatment. The conventional treatment group required 8.3 clinic visits as compared to 4.4 visits for the functionally orientated group. The mean total treatment time was 183 min 19 s for the conventional group vs. 124 min 8 s for the functionally orientated group. The average cost of treatment for the conventional group was 487.74 Euros compared to 356.20 Euros for the functional group.
CONCLUSIONS: Functionally orientated treatment was more cost-effective than conventional treatment in terms of treatment effect and opportunity costs to the patients' time.
Resumo:
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of conventional treatment using partial dentures with functionally-orientated treatment based on the shortened dental arch concept to replace missing teeth for partially dentate elders.
Methods: 44 partially dentate patients aged 65 years and older were recruited following routine dental assessment at a university dental hospital. Patients consented to and were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. The conventional treatment group received a removable partial denture to replace all missing natural teeth. The functionally-orientated group were restored to a shortened dental arch of 10 occluding contacts using resin bonded bridgework. The costs associated with each treatment were recorded including laboratory charges, treatment time and opportunity costs. The impact on quality of life (OHRQoL) was measured using the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile.
Results: Both groups reported improvements in OHRQoL after completion of treatment. For the conventional group, the mean OHIP-14 score decreased from 12.4 pre-operatively to 3.3 post-operatively (p<0.001). In the functionally-orientated group the OHIP-14 score decreased from 11.4 to 1.8 following treatment (p<0.001). On average the conventional treatment group required 8.3 clinic visits as compared to 4.4 visits for the functionally-orientated group. The mean total treatment time was 183 minutes 19 seconds for the conventional group versus 124 minutes 8 seconds for the functionally-orientated group. The conventional treatment group had an average of 6.33 teeth replaced at a laboratory cost of 337.31 Euros. The functionally-orientated group had an average of 2.64 teeth replaced at a laboratory cost of 244.05 Euros.
Conclusions: Restoration to a shortened dental arch using functionally-orientated treatment resulted in a similar improvement in OHRQoL with fewer clinic visits, less operative time and at a lower laboratory cost compared with conventional treatment.
Resumo:
Statins are among the most investigated drugs of all time. There is now a wealth of evidence supporting their use in the primary and secondary prevention arenas. The reduction in event recurrence has since been demonstrated across all levels of risk and in elderly patients. As a result, it is now accepted practice for statins to be prescribed universally in secondary prevention unless contraindicated. The extension of this policy into the primary prevention setting is more problematic, with moral and financial issues arising from the long-term treatment of many young apparently healthy individuals. For these reasons it is necessary to prove not only the financial sustainability of such a strategy but also the long-term safety of statins and the degree of benefit that might be expected.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of alternative monitoring services for people with ocular hypertension (OHT), a glaucoma risk factor.
DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model comparing five alternative care pathways: treatment at OHT diagnosis with minimal monitoring; biennial monitoring (primary and secondary care) with treatment if baseline predicted 5-year glaucoma risk is ≥6%; monitoring and treatment aligned to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) glaucoma guidance (conservative and intensive).
SETTING: UK health services perspective.
PARTICIPANTS: Simulated cohort of 10 000 adults with OHT (mean intraocular pressure (IOP) 24.9 mm Hg (SD 2.4).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, glaucoma detected, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
RESULTS: Treating at diagnosis was the least costly and least effective in avoiding glaucoma and progression. Intensive monitoring following NICE guidance was the most costly and effective. However, considering a wider cost-utility perspective, biennial monitoring was less costly and provided more QALYs than NICE pathways, but was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with treating at diagnosis (£86 717 per additional QALY gained). The findings were robust to risk thresholds for initiating monitoring but were sensitive to treatment threshold, National Health Service costs and treatment adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: For confirmed OHT, glaucoma monitoring more frequently than every 2 years is unlikely to be efficient. Primary treatment and minimal monitoring (assessing treatment responsiveness (IOP)) could be considered; however, further data to refine glaucoma risk prediction models and value patient preferences for treatment are needed. Consideration to innovative and affordable service redesign focused on treatment responsiveness rather than more glaucoma testing is recommended.
Resumo:
Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 5% and five-year survival at early-stage is 92%. CRC risk following index colonoscopy should establish post-screening surveillance benefit, which may be greater in high-risk patients. This review evaluated published cost-effectiveness estimates of post-polypectomy surveillance to assess the potential for personalised recommendations by risk sub-group. Current data suggested colonoscopy identifies those at low-risk of CRC, who may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harms and inefficient use of colonoscopy resources. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced-neoplasia post-polypectomy for low-risk was comparable to those without adenoma; both rates were under the lifetime risk of 5%. Therefore, greater personalisation through de-intensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial and could employ non-invasive testing such as faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention, thereby reserving colonoscopy for targeted use in personalised risk-stratified surveillance.
This systematic review aims to:
1. Assess if there is evidence supporting a program of personalised surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk sub-group.
2. Compare the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies.
3. Assess trade-off between costs, benefits and adverse effects which must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalised surveillance.