Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
OBJECTIVE: To model the benefit of an innovative measure to manage patients with diabetes and a foot ulcer, or at high risk of ulceration, using a soft-heel casting, which can be applied by a podiatrist or other trained staff member and used in the hospital or community setting.
METHOD: An audit of the patient outcomes associated with the casting at NHS Borders was undertaken for inpatients with ulcers. These data were combined with other published data and expert opinion to model the benefit of the casting for prevention and curative purposes compared to standard practice. Cost of healed and unhealed ulcers in various settings was estimated based on the treatment pathways adopted.
RESULTS: The data from the economic model suggest that soft-heel castings could reduce the costs of managing these patients by approximately 10%; about £500 per inpatient and £425 per outpatient with an ulcer, and £205 per high-risk patient, when used for prevention.
CONCLUSION: This cost-consequence analysis suggests the intervention could save about 10% of costs for managing patients with an active ulcer in inpatients or outpatients and offers potential savings if used as a preventative measure. Further studies are required to confirm the estimated clinical benefit and reduced resource use.
No abstract available
BACKGROUND: Everolimus (EVE), an oral mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, is approved in combination with exemestane (EXE) to treat postmenopausal women (PMW) with HR+, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2–negative (HER2–) ABC that progressed after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy. Fulvestrant (FUL), an estrogen receptor antagonist, is another treatment option for PMW previously treated with endocrine therapy. However, the comparative efficacy of EVE + EXE vs FUL is unknown.
METHODS: Six randomized, controlled trials in HR+, HER2–ABC patients were identified by systematic literature review (Cochrane library, National Horizon Scanning Centre, and NICE Web sites) that formed a network permitting indirect comparisons of EVE + EXE or EVE + tamoxifen (TAM) vs FUL: BOLERO-2, CONFIRM, EFECT, Paridaens (2008), SoFEA, and TAMRAD. All 6 trials had EXE, TAM, or FUL 250 mg as the common comparator to form the network. Relative efficacy of EVE and FUL was obtained using a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on these 6 trials. The primary endpoint was local assessment of progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP). The hazard ratio (HR) of EVE + EXE relative to FUL and its 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated. Evidence of a difference between treatments is suggested by the 95% CrI not including 1. A HR <1 indicates that the hazard rate is higher in the comparator group and that the treatment is more effective. RESULTS: EVE + EXE was found to be more efficacious for PFS/TTP than FUL 250 mg (HR = 0.47; 95% Crl, 0.38-0.58) and more efficacious than FUL 500 mg (HR = 0.59; 95% Crl, 0.45-0.77). EVE + TAM was found to be numerically better for PFS/TTP than FUL 250 mg (HR = 0.65; 95% Crl, 0.40-1.04) and numerically better than FUL 500 mg (HR = 0.81; 95% Crl, 0.49-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: The indirect evidence from this analysis suggests that EVE in combination with EXE is more efficacious than FUL 250 and 500 mg in PMW with HR+, HER2– ABC that progresses after endocrine therapy. These data should be interpreted with caution as there is no randomized trial that directly compares EVE + EXE vs FUL.
AIMS: To establish the resource and cost savings from the early use of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) procedures with ePTFE covered stent-grafts configured for TIPS (SG) compared to endoscopic procedures and pharmaceuticals in high risk patients (Child–Pugh class B/C) with acute variceal bleeding.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapies are currently the primary treatment for bleeding varices, with TIPS used when endoscopic treatment fails or when patients are not amenable to endoscopic intervention. Trials have shown clinical benefit (lower mortality, fewer re-bleeds and lower hepatic encephalopathy (HE)) from the earlier use of TIPS in patients with persistent bleeding. There are currently no published cost-effectiveness analyses of this earlier use.
METHODS: A Markov economic model was developed to measure the incremental resources and costs of early TIPS with SG, compared to endoscopic band ligation (EBL) plus pharmaceuticals, with TIPS as rescue therapy. Clinical data came mainly from published studies including an RCT (Garcia-Pagan 2010), whilst healthcare costs were from UK national databases. Events & costs were modelled over two years.
RESULTS: Using early TIPS with SG compared to EBL plus pharmaceuticals was estimated to save £1,655 per patient over 2 years. The total treatment costs were £6,455 for TIPS and £8,110 for EBL, providing a net saving of £1,655 per patient. Early TIPS and subsequent re-interventions cost £4,332 more than the EBL arm. However, savings were accrued from fewer EBL procedures and pharmaceuticals (saving £3,223); fewer episodes of recurrent bleeding (saving £2,475) and reduced rate of severe HE (saving £290). Modelling 100 patients, mortality was reduced in the early TIPS arm, 28 patients compared to 63 in the EBL plus pharmaceuticals arm. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were sensitive to device costs, frequency of EBL procedures and the relative rates of severe HE per patient. Using TIPS with SG earlier to manage variceal bleeding was cost saving under all sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: The model showed that early utilisation of TIPS with ePTFE covered stent-grafts configured for TIPS was cost saving and improved survival compared to EBL and pharmaceuticals for high risk patients (Child–Pugh class B/C) with acute variceal bleeding.
RATIONALE, AIMS, OBJECTIVES: Demand for both Emergency Department (ED) and radiology services continues to increase across the UK while simultaneously, healthcare organisations are being asked to evaluate the quality of care provided and constrain service costs. National guidance on radiograph reporting times recommends ED radiographs are reported on day of patient attendance but in practice, delays in reporting persist. This study considers whether a radiographer led immediate reporting service for ED referrals could provide a cost-effective service improvement solution.
METHODS: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial was undertaken. 1502 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to an immediate or delayed reporting arm and treated according to group assignment. Patient health gain was measured in terms of change in utilities derived from EQ-5D responses at baseline and 8 week follow-up. Resources used and the costs of an immediate reporting service were analysed at the patient level and compared to standard reporting practices.
RESULTS: 1688 radiographic examinations were performed (1502 patients). 79 discordant radiographic interpretations were identified (n = 79/1688; 4.7%). Interpretive errors were significantly reduced within immediate reporting arm. No significant difference was noted in the relative improvement in patient perceived health status between the 2 arms of the study. The average cost saving per patient in the immediate reporting arm was £23.40.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiographer led immediate reporting of ED radiographs is a cost-effective service development and its universal introduction could make a significant contribution to the current drive to increase service productivity within current budget constraints.
PURPOSE: To describe a systematic review of population-based prevalence studies of visual impairment (VI) and blindness worldwide over the past 32 years that informs the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study.
METHODS: A systematic review (Stage 1) of medical literature from 1 January 1980 to 31 January 2012 identified indexed articles containing data on incidence, prevalence and causes of blindness and VI. Only cross-sectional population-based representative studies were selected from which to extract data for a database of age- and sex-specific data of prevalence of four distance and one near vision loss categories (presenting and best-corrected). Unpublished data and data from studies using rapid assessment methodology were later added (Stage 2).
RESULTS: Stage 1 identified 14,908 references, of which 204 articles met the inclusion criteria. Stage 2 added unpublished data from 44 rapid assessment studies and four other surveys. This resulted in a final dataset of 252 articles of 243 studies, of which 238 (98%) reported distance vision loss categories. A total of 37 studies of the final dataset reported prevalence of mild VI and four reported near VI.
CONCLUSION: We report a comprehensive systematic review of over 30 years of VI/blindness studies. While there has been an increase in population-based studies conducted in the 2000s compared to previous decades, there is limited information from certain regions (eg, Central Africa and Central and Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean and Latin America), and younger age groups, and minimal data regarding prevalence of near vision and mild distance VI.
Graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a common complication following haematopoietic stem cell transplant but little is published about the impact of this condition on hospital readmission rates. We report a retrospective analysis of readmission rates and associated costs in 187 consecutive allogeneic transplant patients to assess the impact of GvHD. The overall readmission rate was higher in patients with GvHD (86% (101/118) vs. 59% (41/69), p < 0.001). The readmission rate was higher both in the first 100 d from transplant (p = 0.02) and in the first year following transplant (p < 0.001). 151/455 (33%) of all readmission episodes occurred within 100 d of transplant. The mean number of inpatient days was significantly higher in patients with grade III/IV acute GvHD (101 d) compared with those with grade I/II GvHD (70 d; p = 0.003). The mean cost of readmission was higher in patients with GvHD (£28 860) than in non-GvHD patients (£13 405; p = 0.002) and in patients with grade III/IV GvHD (£40 012) compared with those patients with grade I/II GvHD (£24 560; p = 0.038). Survival was higher in those with grade I/II GvHD (55%) compared to grade III/IV GvHD (14%; p < 0.001). This study shows the high economic burden and poor overall survival associated with grade III/IV GvHD.
