62 research outputs found
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textOBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids versus more frequent use of same-potency topical corticosteroids in the treatment of people with atopic eczema. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Bibliographies of included studies and related papers. Experts in the field. Manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were assessed for inclusion according to predefined criteria by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. RESULTS: One RCT comparing moderately potent corticosteroids, eight RCTs comparing potent corticosteroids and one RCT comparing very potent corticosteroids were included. No RCTs or CCTs of mild corticosteroids were eligible. Most RCTs were of poor methodological quality, although two were judged to be of good quality. The only study that compared moderately potent corticosteroids found no significant difference between once- and twice-daily application. For potent corticosteroids, some statistically significant differences in numbers of patients responding to treatment were identified favouring twice-daily treatment, but these were inconsistent between physician and patient assessment and outcomes selected for analysis. Two studies found a significant improvement in some symptoms with once-daily mometasone furoate compared with twice-daily application of a different active compound, while a third study found no significant differences. One good-quality study favoured twice-daily application of fluticasone propionate ointment, while other studies found no significant difference or an improvement in one symptom but not others. The only study comparing very potent corticosteroids found a statistically significant difference in comparative clinical response in favour of three-times daily treatment, but no difference in number of patients with at least a good response. There appears to be little difference in the frequency or severity of short-term events, however data are limited. No published economic evaluations were identified. Given findings on clinical effectiveness, where outcomes from the comparators are similar, the relative cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent application of topical corticosteroids becomes a case of cost-minimisation, where the least-cost alternative should be favoured, all else being equal. Topical corticosteroid products included in this review have a wide variation in price; the cost per 30 g/30 ml varies between GBP0.60 and GBP4.88. Specific decisions on the least-cost alternative, between once-daily and more frequent application of products, will be determined by the relative price of the products being compared. Where patients can be appropriately prescribed once-daily treatment of a similarly priced product, a reduction in the quantity of topical corticosteroid used will be expected. However, issues related to pack size for prescribed products and subsequent waste (unused product) could easily erode any potential saving. The potential cost-savings on prescribed products are very small at a patient level; although given the large numbers of patients with atopic eczema, cost savings in theory could be substantial. The presence of specifically marketed 'once-daily' topical corticosteroids, which are relatively expensive (per unit price), may result in additional costs should there be a general recommendation in favour of once-daily use of topical corticosteroids, compared to more frequent use. CONCLUSIONS: The literature is very limited; that available indicates the clinical effectiveness of once-daily and more frequent application of potent topical corticosteroids is very similar, but it does not offer a basis for favouring either option. The cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use will depend on the generalisability of the findings to the specific treatment decision and the relative product prices. The trials included in this review generally refer to moderate to severe atopic eczema, whereas most patients have mild disease, and furthermore most of the included trials report on potent topical corticosteroids (eight of 10 RCTs); therefore the generalisability of the findings is limited. Further research is required on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency corticosteroids, specifically on mild potency products for mild to moderate atopic eczema. Outcomes should include quality of life and compliance. [References: 79
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textObjectives: to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity.Data sources: seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished referencesReview methods: two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) ? 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI ? 40; BMI ? 30 and < 40 with Type 2 diabetes at baseline; and BMI ? 30 and <35. Models were applied with assumptions on costs and comorbidity.Results: a total of 5386 references were identified of which 26 were included in the clinical effectiveness review: three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical interventions and 20 RCTs compared different surgical procedures. Bariatric surgery was a more effective intervention for weight loss than non-surgical options. In one large cohort study weight loss was still apparent 10 years after surgery, whereas patients receiving conventional treatment had gained weight. Some measures of QoL improved after surgery, but not others. After surgery statistically fewer people had metabolic syndrome and there was higher remission of Type 2 diabetes than in non-surgical groups. In one large cohort study the incidence of three out of six comorbidities assessed 10 years after surgery was significantly reduced compared with conventional therapy. Gastric bypass (GBP) was more effective for weight loss than vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) was more effective than AGB in one study. GBP and banded GBP led to similar weight loss and results for GBP versus LISG and VBG versus AGB were equivocal. All comparisons of open versus laparoscopic surgeries found similar weight losses in each group. Comorbidities after surgery improved in all groups, but with no significant differences between different surgical interventions. Adverse event reporting varied; mortality ranged from none to 10%. Adverse events from conventional therapy included intolerance to medication, acute cholecystitis and gastrointestinal problems. Major adverse events following surgery, some necessitating reoperation, included anastomosis leakage, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, band slippage and band erosion. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective in comparison to non-surgical treatment in the reviewed published estimates of cost-effectiveness. However, these estimates are likely to be unreliable and not generalisable because of methodological shortcomings and the modelling assumptions made. Therefore a new economic model was developed. Surgical management was more costly than non-surgical management in each of the three patient populations analysed, but gave improved outcomes. For morbid obesity, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (base case) ranged between £2000 and £4000 per QALY gained. They remained within the range regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective when assumptions for deterministic sensitivity analysis were changed. For BMI ? 30 and < 40, ICERs were £18,930 at two years and £1397 at 20 years, and for BMI ? 30 and <35, ICERs were £60,754 at two years and £12,763 at 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses produced ICERs which were generally within the range considered cost-effective, particularly at the long twenty year time horizons, although for the BMI 30-35 group some ICERs were above the acceptable range.Conclusions: bariatric surgery appears to be a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for moderately to severely obese people compared with non-surgical interventions. Uncertainties remain and further research is required to provide detailed data on patient QoL; impact of surgeon experience on outcome; late complications leading to reoperation; duration of comorbidity remission; resource use. Good-quality RCTs will provide evidence on bariatric surgery for young people and for adults with class I or class II obesity. New research must report on the resolution and/or development of comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension so that the potential benefits of early intervention can be assessed
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for children with idiopathic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review
No full textThe clinical effectiveness literature on treatments for idiopathic SRNS in children is very limited. The available evidence suggests a beneficial effect of ciclosporin on remission rates and of cyclophosphamide on time to remission; however, the strength of the conclusions drawn is limited by the poor quality of the included studies. The other treatments included in this review were each evaluated by only one study, and none found a statistically significant effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically significant difference. The available data on costs and outcomes are sparse and do not permit the reliable modelling of the cost-effectiveness of treatments for SRNS at present. A modelling framework is suggested, should more relevant data become available. A well-designed adequately powered randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin with other treatments in children with SRNS without genetic mutation is require
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textBone-anchored hearing aids for people with bilateral hearing impairment: a systematic review
No full textBACKGROUND: Bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) are indicated for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who can benefit from amplification of sound. In resource limited health care systems, it is important that evidence regarding the benefit of BAHAs is critically appraised to aid decision-making.OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To assess the clinical effectiveness of BAHAs for people with bilateral hearing impairment.TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review.SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2009. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and BAHA manufacturers.EVALUATION METHOD: Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment of full papers were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through narrative review with tabulation of results.RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Studies suggested audiological benefits of BAHAs when compared with bone-conduction hearing aids or no aiding. A mixed pattern of results was seen when BAHAs were compared to air-conduction hearing aids. Improvements in quality of life with BAHAs were found by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic quality of life measures. Issues such as improvement of discharging ears and length of time the aid can be worn were not adequately addressed by the studies. Studies demonstrated some benefits of bilateral BAHAs. Adverse events data were limited. The quality of the studies was low.CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is weak. As such, caution is indicated in the interpretation of presently available data. However, based on the available evidence, BAHAs appear to be a reasonable treatment option for people with bilateral conductive or mixed hearing loss. Further research into the benefits of BAHAs, including quality of life, is required to reduce the uncertainty.<br/
Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and economic evaluation
No full textObjectives: to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and pegaptanib for subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) associated with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD).Data sources: electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2006. Experts in the field were consulted and manufacturers’ submissions were examined.Review methods: the quality of included studies was assessed using standard methods and the clinical effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. A model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and of pegaptanib (separately), compared with current practice or best supportive care, from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Two time horizons were adopted for each model. The first adopted time horizons determined by the available trial data. The second analysis extrapolated effects of treatment beyond the clinical trials, adopting a time horizon of 10 years.Results: the combined analysis of two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pegaptanib [0.3 mg (licensed dose), 1.0 mg and 3.0 mg] versus sham injection in patients with all lesion types was reported by three publications (the VISION study). Three published RCTs of ranibizumab were identified (MARINA, ANCHOR, FOCUS), and an additional unpublished RCT was provided by the manufacturer (PIER). Significantly more patients lost less than 15 letters of visual acuity at 12 months when taking pegaptanib (0.3 mg: 70% of patients; 1.0 mg: 71% of patients; 3.0 mg: 65% of patients) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg: 94.3–94.5%; 0.5 mg: 94.6–96.4%) than sham injection patients (55% versus pegaptanib and 62.2% versus ranibizumab) or, in the case of ranibizumab, photodynamic therapy (PDT) (64.3%). The proportion of patients gaining 15 letters or more (a clinically important outcome having a significant impact on quality of life) was statistically significantly greater in the pegaptanib group for doses of 0.3 and 1.0 mg but not for 3.0 mg, and for all ranibizumab groups compared to the sham injection groups or PDT. This was also statistically significant for patients receiving 0.5 mg ranibizumab plus PDT compared with PDT plus sham injection. Pegaptanib patients lost statistically significantly fewer letters after 12 months of treatment than the sham group [mean letters lost: 7.5 (0.3 mg), 6.5 (1.0 mg) or 10 (3.0 mg) vs 14.5 (sham)]. In the MARINA and ANCHOR trials, ranibizumab patients gained letters of visual acuity at 12 months whereas patients with sham injection or PDT lost about 10 letters (p < 0.001) and in the PIER study, ranibizumab patients lost significantly fewer than the sham injection group. Significantly fewer patients receiving pegaptanib or ranibizumab deteriorated to legal blindness compared with the control groups. Adverse events were common for both pegaptanib and ranibizumab but most were mild to moderate. Drug costs for 1 year of treatment were estimated as £4626 for pegaptanib and £9134 for ranibizumab. Nondrug costs accounted for an additional £2614 for pegaptanib and £3120 for ranibizumab. Further costs are associated with the management of injectionrelated adverse events, from £1200 to £2100. For pegaptanib compared with usual care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from £163,603 for the 2-year model to £30,986 for the 10-year model. Similarly, the ICERs for ranibizumab for patients with minimally classic and occult no classic lesions, compared with usual care, ranged from £152,464 for the 2-year model to £25,098 for the 10-year model.Conclusions: Patients with AMD of any lesion type benefit from treatment with pegaptanib or ranibizumab on measures of visual acuity when compared with sham injection and/or PDT. Patients who continuedtreatment with either drug appeared to maintain benefits after 2 years of follow-up. When comparing pegaptanib and ranibizumab, the evidence was less clear due to the lack of direct comparison through head-to-head trials and the lack of opportunity for indirect statistical comparison due to heterogeneity. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the two drugs offered additional benefit over the comparators of usual care and PDT but at increased cost. Future research should encompass trials to compare pegaptanib with ranibizumab and bevacizumab, and to investigate the role of verteporfin PDT in combination with these drugs. Studies are also needed to assess adverse events outside the proposed RCTs, to consider the optimal dosing regimes of these drugs and the benefits of re-treatment after initial treatment, and to review costing in more detail. Health state utilities and their relationship with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, the relationship between duration of vision loss and the quality of life and functional impact of vision loss, behavioural studies of those genetically at risk are other topics requiring further research
Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies
No full textNo consensus on the indications for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases exists. This systematic review has been undertaken to assess the published evidence for its efficacy and safety and to identify prognostic factors. Studies were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references and contacting investigators. The outcome measures were overall survival, disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost effectiveness, and a qualitative summary of the trends across all studies was produced. Only 30 of 529 independent studies met all the eligibility criteria for the review, and data on 30-day mortality and morbidity only were included from a further nine studies. The best available evidence came from prospective case series, but only two studies reported outcomes for all patients undergoing surgery. The remainder reported outcomes for selected groups of patients: those undergoing hepatic resection or those undergoing curative resection. Postoperative mortality rates were generally low (median 2.8%). The majority of studies described only serious postoperative morbidity, the most common being bile leak and associated perihepatic abscess. Approximately 30% of patients remained alive 5 years after resection and around two-thirds of these are disease free. The quality of the majority of published papers was poor and ascertaining the benefits of surgical resection of colorectal hepatic metastases is difficult in the absence of randomised trials. However, it is clear that there is group of patients with liver metastases who may become long-term disease-free survivors following hepatic resection. Such survival is rare in apparently comparable patients who do not have surgical treatment. Further work is needed to more accurately define this group of patients and to determine whether the addition of adjuvant treatments results in improved survival. British Journal of Cancer (2006
Surgery for weight loss in adults
No full textBackground: bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. The effects of the available bariatric procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and most recently updated in 2009.Objectives: to assess the effects of bariatric surgery for overweight and obesity, including the control of comorbidities.Search methods: studies were obtained from searches of numerous databases, supplemented with searches of reference lists and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of last search was November 2013.Selection criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical interventions with non-surgical management of obesity or overweight or comparing different surgical procedures.Data collection and analysis: data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument.Main results: twenty-two trials with 1798 participants were included; sample sizes ranged from 15 to 250. Most studies followed participants for 12, 24 or 36 months; the longest follow-up was 10 years. The risk of bias across all domains of most trials was uncertain; just one was judged to have adequate allocation concealment.All seven RCTs comparing surgery with non-surgical interventions found benefits of surgery on measures of weight change at one to two years follow-up. Improvements for some aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL) (two RCTs) and diabetes (five RCTs) were also found. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Five studies reported data on mortality, no deaths occurred. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in four studies and ranged from 0% to 37% in the surgery groups and 0% to 25% in the no surgery groups. Between 2% and 13% of participants required reoperations in the five studies that reported these data.Three RCTs found that laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L)(RYGB) achieved significantly greater weight loss and body mass index (BMI) reduction up to five years after surgery compared with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Mean end-of-study BMI was lower following LRYGB compared with LAGB: mean difference (MD) -5.2 kg/m² (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4 to -4.0; P < 0.00001; 265 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). Evidence for QoL and comorbidities was very low quality. The LRGYB procedure resulted in greater duration of hospitalisation in two RCTs (4/3.1 versus 2/1.5 days) and a greater number of late major complications (26.1% versus 11.6%) in one RCT. In one RCT the LAGB required high rates of reoperation for band removal (9 patients, 40.9%).Open RYGB, LRYGB and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) led to losses of weight and/or BMI but there was no consistent picture as to which procedure was better or worse in the seven included trials. MD was -0.2 kg/m² (95% CI -1.8 to 1.3); 353 participants; 6 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of LRYGB. No statistically significant differences in QoL were found (one RCT). Six RCTs reported mortality; one death occurred following LRYGB. SAEs were reported by one RCT and were higher in the LRYGB group (4.5%) than the LSG group (0.9%). Reoperations ranged from 6.7% to 24% in the LRYGB group and 3.3% to 34% in the LSG group. Effects on comorbidities, complications and additional surgical procedures were neutral, except gastro-oesophageal reflux disease improved following LRYGB (one RCT). One RCT of people with a BMI 25 to 35 and type 2 diabetes found laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss and improvement of diabetes compared with LSG, and had similar levels of complications.Two RCTs found that biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BDDS) resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB in morbidly obese patients. End-of-study mean BMI loss was greater following BDDS: MD -7.3 kg/m² (95% CI -9.3 to -5.4); P < 0.00001; 107 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence). QoL was similar on most domains. In one study between 82% to 100% of participants with diabetes had a HbA1c of less than 5% three years after surgery. Reoperations were higher in the BDDS group (16.1% to 27.6%) than the LRYGB group (4.3% to 8.3%). One death occurred in the BDDS group.One RCT comparing laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus LRYGB found BMI, excess weight loss, and rates of remission of diabetes and hypertension were similar at 12 months follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, SAEs and reoperation rates were not reported. No deaths occurred in either group.One RCT comparing laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) versus LAGB found greater improvement in weight-loss outcomes following LISG at three years follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, mortality and SAEs were not reported. Reoperations occurred in 20% of the LAGB group and in 10% of the LISG group.One RCT (unpublished) comparing laparoscopic gastric imbrication with LSG found no statistically significant difference in weight loss between groups (very low quality evidence). QoL and comorbidities were not reported. No deaths occurred. Two participants in the gastric imbrication group required reoperation.Authors' conclusions: surgery results in greater improvement in weight loss outcomes and weight associated comorbidities compared with non-surgical interventions, regardless of the type of procedures used. When compared with each other, certain procedures resulted in greater weight loss and improvements in comorbidities than others. Outcomes were similar between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy, and both of these procedures had better outcomes than adjustable gastric banding. For people with very high BMI, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB. Duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic RYGB had similar outcomes, however this is based on one small trial. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy led to better weight-loss outcomes than adjustable gastric banding after three years follow-up. This was based on one trial only. Weight-related outcomes were similar between laparoscopic gastric imbrication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in one trial. Across all studies adverse event rates and reoperation rates were generally poorly reported. Most trials followed participants for only one or two years, therefore the long-term effects of surgery remain unclear
Junior Law Class Officers
No full textR.L. Harris, President; Colquitt Finley, Vice-President; J.L. Dowling, Secretary; H.W. Ketron, Historian; W.S. McGreevy, Poet; G.D. Blount, Captain Baseball; R.A. Ransom, Captain Football; O.J. Coogler, Manager Football; Fannie Jenkins, Judge
From the 1902 Pandora, yearbook of the University of Georgia.
Courtesy of the Hargrett Rare Book & Manuscript Library, University of Georgia Librarie
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of bone anchored hearing aids (BAHAs) for people who are bilaterally deaf
No full textMost people with hearing loss can benefit from conventional air-conduction hearing aids, however some people cannot wear these or do not benefit fully from them. A BAHA delivers sound through the skull by vibrations, missing out the outer and middle ears. Hearing loss can occur in both ears (bilateral). In these cases, BAHAs are usually fitted on just one side (unilaterally), but it has been suggested there may be benefits of bilateral BAHAs. The benefits and costs of bilateral compared with unilateral BAHAs and of BAHAs compared with conventional aids or surgery is not known.A systematic review and economic evaluation will be undertaken. Literature will be identified from several sources including electronic databases. Studies will be selected for inclusion using pre-defined and explicit criteria by two reviewers independently. Data will be extracted by two reviewers and the methodological quality of all studies will be assessed using recognised criteria. Data will be synthesised through a narrative review with tabulation of results of included studies. Where possible results will be synthesised through meta-analysis.We will develop an economic model either through adapting an existing model or developing our own new economic model to examine the costs and benefits of BAHAs within the UK. This will use data from our review of studies, advice from clinicians and patient representatives and data from recognised sources
- …
