886 resultados para technology assessment
Resumo:
Objectives: To determine the best photographic surrogate markers for detecting sight-threatening macular oedema (MO) in people with diabetes attending UK national screening programmes. Design: A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of 3170 patients with photographic signs of diabetic retinopathy visible within the macular region [exudates within two disc diameters, microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages (M/DHs) and blot haemorrhages (BHs)] who were recruited from seven study centres. Setting: All patients were recruited and imaged at one of seven study centres in Aberdeen, Birmingham, Dundee, Dunfermline, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Oxford. Participants: Subjects with features of diabetic retinopathy visible within the macular region attending one of seven diabetic retinal screening programmes. Interventions: Alternative referral criteria for suspected MO based on photographic surrogate markers; an optical coherence tomographic examination in addition to the standard digital retinal photograph. Main outcome measures: (1) To determine the best method to detect sight-threatening MO in people with diabetes using photographic surrogate markers. (2) Sensitivity and specificity estimates to assess the costs and consequences of using alternative strategies. (3) Modelled long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Prevalence of MO was strongly related to the presence of lesions and was roughly five times higher in subjects with exudates or BHs or more than two M/DHs within one disc diameter. Having worse visual acuity was associated with about a fivefold higher prevalence of MO. Current manual screening grading schemes that ignore visual acuity or the presence of M/DHs could be improved by taking these into account. Health service costs increase substantially with more sensitive/less specific strategies. A fully automated strategy, using the automated detection of patterns of photographic surrogate markers, is superior to all current manual grading schemes for detecting MO in people with diabetes. The addition of optical coherence tomography (OCT) to each strategy, prior to referral, results in a reduction in costs to the health service with no decrement in the number of MO cases detected. Conclusions: Compared with all current manual grading schemes, for the same sensitivity, a fully automated strategy, using the automated detection of patterns of photographic surrogate markers, achieves a higher specificity for detecting MO in people with diabetes, especially if visual acuity is included in the automated strategy. Overall, costs to the health service are likely to increase if more sensitive referral strategies are adopted over more specific screening strategies for MO, for only very small gains in QALYs. The addition of OCT to each screening strategy, prior to referral, results in a reduction in costs to the health service with no decrement in the number of MO cases detected. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Resumo:
Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)
Resumo:
This project was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Resumo:
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank, Estelle Payerne (article screening, data extraction and bias assessment); Trish Boyton (article retrieval and screening) and Laura Cawley (search terms and title screening) for their invaluable help in conducting this systematic review. Funding The research was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Resumo:
Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.
Resumo:
Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.
Resumo:
Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.
Resumo:
Funding acknowledgement This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (10/31/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment.. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/103102 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. NIHR were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in the writing of the articles for publication.
Resumo:
FUNDING & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 05/47/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. Further information available at: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/054702 This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Due to the confidential nature of the trial data supporting this publication not all of the data can be made accessible to other researchers. Please contact the UKUFF study principal investigator Andrew Carr (andrew.carr@ndorms.ox.ac.uk) for more information. The authors wish to thank the UKUFF trial collaborators for their contribution in managing the conduct of the trial, and for their comments on the interim economic results: Marion Campbell and Hannah Bruhn (Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, HSRU, University of Aberdeen), Jonathan Rees MD and David Beard (NDORMS, University of Oxford; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre), Jane Moser (NDORMS, University of Oxford), Raymond Fitzpatrick and Jill Dawson (NDPH, University of Oxford).
Resumo:
The VUE study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 11/129/183).
Resumo:
Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who agreed to take part in the trial. This study was supported NHS Research Scotland (NRS), through Chief Scientist Office (CSO) and the Scottish Mental Health Research Network, and the Clinical Research Network-Mental Health. We are grateful to the Psychosis Research Unit (PRU) Service User Reference Group (SURG) for their consultation regarding the design of the study and contribution to the developments of study related materials. We are grateful to our Independent Trial Steering Committee and Independent Data Monitoring Committee for provided oversight of the trial. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number10/101/02) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Visit the HTA programme website for further project information. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Resumo:
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Resumo:
Background: Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE® (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest™ (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-offlight mass spectrometry). Data sources: Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results: For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. Limitations: Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. Conclusions: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required.
Resumo:
As tecnologias de saúde, nomeadamente medicamentos, dispositivos médicos (DM), procedimentos médicos ou cirúrgicos, entre outros, têm ocupado uma posição de destaque no setor da saúde, e na vida dos seus utilizadores. A inovação e utilização de tecnologias de saúde, e consequente aumento das despesas fizeram emergir a necessidade de avaliação das tecnologias de saúde. Surge assim, a avaliação de tecnologias de saúde (ATS), que tem por objetivo abordar os impactos clínicos, económicos, organizacionais, sociais, legais e éticos de uma tecnologia de saúde, considerando o seu contexto médico específico, bem como as alternativas disponíveis. A ATS pretende que os processos sejam feitos de forma rigorosa, transparente, valorizando e garantindo a sustentabilidade do acesso aos cuidados em saúde. Seguindo a tendência europeia de implementação de políticas e modelos de ATS, Portugal criou o seu próprio sistema de avaliação de tecnologias. O Decreto-Lei nº 97/2015, de 1 de junho veio oficializar a criação do Sistema Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias de Saúde (SiNATS). O SiNATS vai permitir uma avaliação não só de medicamentos, mas também de DM e outras tecnologias tendo em consideração a avaliação técnica, terapêutica e económica das tecnologias de saúde com base em fatores sociais, políticos, éticos e a participação de entidades, como, a indústria, as instituições de ensino, as instituições de saúde, os investigadores, os profissionais de saúde, os doentes e as associações dos doentes. O SiNATS vai emitir recomendações e decisões sobre o uso das tecnologias de saúde e possibilitar o ganho em saúde e contribuir para a sustentabilidade do Serviço Nacional de Saúde (SNS). O SiNATS vem permitir a avaliação de DM. O sector dos DM é um sector caracterizado pela inovação, crescimento e também competitividade. A complexidade e especificidade deste sector devem por isso ser tidas em consideração aquando da sua análise. A implementação do SiNATS permitirá avaliar e reavaliar preços, comparticipações, recomendações, contratos ao longo do ciclo de vida de cada DM. No presente momento, ainda é difícil expor os processos através dos quais esta avaliação vai ser processada, uma vez que se aguarda a publicação de despachos e portarias referidos no Decreto-Lei nº 97/2015, de 1 de junho. Tendo em consideração a partilha de informação sobre políticas, métodos, procedimentos de ATS aplicada aos DM na Europa, foram analisados os casos de França e do Reino Unido com o objetivo de alargar o conhecimento acerca do que já é feito a nível Europeu e explorar se os mesmos poderiam ser adaptados à realidade portuguesa. Em França, a ATS está diretamente relacionada com a comparticipação de DM, já no Reino Unido, o National Institute and Centre of Excellence (NICE) tem a responsabilidade de avaliar os DM segundo procedimentos de ATS, mas não está diretamente relacionado com comparticipação. O NICE publica normas de orientação que auxiliam a decisão de aquisição ou não de um DM. Tendo em consideração a informação reunida e descrita, este trabalho também propõe um modelo hipotético sobre o sistema português de avaliação de DM. Este modelo aborda, ainda que não de forma exaustiva, os possíveis processos e procedimentos para a avaliação de DM. Este sistema caracteriza-se pela importância dada ao envolvimento dos stakeholders e partilha de informação com os mesmos, mas também na agilização dos processos, isto é, uma redução e simplificação dos processos de avaliação de DM. A reavaliação de DM durante a sua comercialização também ganha destaque, apontando que cada grupo genérico de dispositivos ou DM inovador dever ser reavaliado a cada cinco anos, ou sempre que informação emergente o justifique. Este modelo representa uma abordagem experimental sobre o futuro do SiNATS aplicado aos DM. A partilha de informação, os fóruns de discussão e o envolvimento da sociedade serão uma mais-valia para que a implementação do SiNATS aos DM seja feita de forma gradual e com a máxima transparência possível.
