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 determine the cost-effectiveness ofVacuum Assisted Closure (VAC) therapy (KCI Medical), based on a comparison with both traditional and advanced wound dressings, for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in the US.
METHOD: A Markov model was designed to estimate the cost per amputation avoided and the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of VAC therapy, compared with both traditional and advanced dressings. Over a one-year period the Markov model simulated 1000 patients using transition probabilities obtained from the literature. The health states used in the model were: uninfected ulcer; infected ulcer; infected ulcer post-amputation; healed; healed post-amputation; amputation; and death. Patients initially treated with VAC switched to the advanced dressing after three months of treatment if their wound remained unhealed. Patients treated with traditional or advanced dressings were assumed to continue with their treatment for the full 12 months if they remained unhealed.
RESULTS The model results demonstrate improved healing rates (61% versus 59%), more QALYs (0.54 versus 0.53) and an overall lower cost of care ($52,830 versus $61,757 per person) for patients treated with VAC therapy compared with advanced dressings. Vacuum Assisted Closure was also shown to be a dominant intervention when compared with traditional dressings.
CONCLUSION: The model results indicate that VAC therapy is less costly and more effective than both traditional and advanced dressings. The results are robust to changes in key parameters, including the transition probabilities, the cost ofVAC therapy and the utility weights applied to health states.
No abstract available
PURPOSE: To document published utilities for health states associated with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and determine the most appropriate values for use in economic models to evaluate renal treatments in the UK.
METHODS: A structured literature review was conducted (MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED and HTA) in order to identify relevant articles published between January 1990 and January 2006. In addition searches were conducted on websites of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations and the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Articles were reviewed and those not containing utilities excluded. Results were assessed on the quality of the elicitation studies and their relevance to the UK HTA environment.
RESULTS Thirty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in Canada (13), the US (10) and the Netherlands (4). Utilities were identified for all/most of the necessary states, but scores for individual states differed widely between studies and very few studies met the quality criteria. The majority of studies used the time trade-off (23) and standard gamble (11) to elicit utilities, while only six used EQ-5D. Seven studies provided community preferences. Two studies were judged to be directly relevant to economic evaluations in the UK.
CONCLUSIONS: Many studies have estimated utilities in ESRD patients, but only a few have estimated utilities based upon public preferences. Further empirical research is needed to produce more reliable utilities for economic modelling in the UK, especially in chronic kidney disease patients who do not require dialysis.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of community hospital care on independence for older people needing rehabilitation with that of general hospital care.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: Seven community hospitals and five general hospitals in the midlands and north of England.
PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred ninety patients needing rehabilitation after hospital admission with an acute illness.
INTERVENTION: Multidisciplinary team care for older people in community hospitals.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale (NEADL); secondary outcomes were the Barthel Index, Nottingham Health Profile, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, mortality, discharge destination, 6-month residence status, and satisfaction with services.
RESULTS: Loss of independence at 6 months was significantly less likely in the community hospital group (mean adjusted NEADL change score group difference 3.27; 95% confidence interval 0.26-6.28; P=.03). The results for the secondary outcome measures were similar for the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Postacute community hospital rehabilitation care for older people is associated with greater independence.
No abstract available
OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of this study was to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treatment with sevelamer for hyperphosphataemia compared with calcium-based binders.
METHODS: Using published data on mortality and hospitalisation rates, a Markov model was developed to predict health outcomes and associated costs for the treatment of hyperphosphataemia using either sevelamer or calcium binders in chronic kidney disease patients who had recently started haemodialysis. Patient outcomes were modelled for 5 years, and incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were calculated for sevelamer relative to calcium carbonate and calcium acetate binders. The perspective adopted was that of the UK National Health Service.
RESULTS: The total 5-year discounted treatment cost for patients treated with sevelamer is £24 216, while for the calcium carbonate group total cost was £17 695. This is an incremental cost of £6521 per sevelamer-treated patient over 5 years. Patients receiving sevelamer can be expected to experience 2.70 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to 2.46 for those treated with calcium carbonate (i.e. an incremental gain of 0.24 QALYs). This results in an incremental cost per QALY of £27 120 and an incremental cost per life year gained of £15 508. Results were similar with calcium acetate.
CONCLUSION: Together with the unique morbidity and mortality benefits, this study suggests that treatment with sevelamer confers clinical benefits with a modest investment of additional economic resources.
The application of conditionality to coverage decisions for healthcare technologies is increasing. Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) represents a specific approach to coverage for promising technologies for which the evidence remains uncertain. CED demands that additional evidence is generated to address the sources of uncertainty and secure ongoing coverage. This study explores the conceptual and policy issues relating to CED and discusses issues involved in operationalizing CED in practice, including presenting criteria for which technologies may be most suitable for CED. This study is intended to further the debate on the use of CED as well as highlight areas that warrant further research.
