Cost effectiveness

About: Cost effectiveness is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 69775 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1531477 citations.

ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as a combined effort of the 'ASsessment in AS' international working group and the European League Against Rheumatism. METHODS: Each of the 22 participants was asked to contribute up to 15 propositions describing key clinical aspects of AS management. A Delphi process was used to select 10 final propositions. A systematic literature search was then performed to obtain scientific evidence for each proposition. Outcome data for efficacy, adverse effects, and cost effectiveness were abstracted. The effect size, relative risk, number needed to treat, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio were calculated. On the basis of the search results, 10 major recommendations for the management of AS were constructed. The strength of recommendation was assessed based on the strength of the literature evidence, risk-benefit trade-off, and clinical expertise. RESULTS: The final recommendations considered the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (conventional NSAIDs, coxibs, and co-prescription of gastroprotective agents), disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, treatments with biological agents, simple analgesics, local and systemic steroids, non-pharmacological treatment (including education, exercise, and physiotherapy), and surgical interventions. Three general recommendations were also included. Research evidence (categories I-IV) supported 11 interventions in the treatment of AS. Strength of recommendation varied, depending on the category of evidence and expert opinion. CONCLUSION: Ten key recommendations for the treatment of AS were developed and assessed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. Regular updating will be carried out to keep abreast of new developments in the management of AS.

Educational and organizational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care: a systematic review

Abstract: ContextDepression is commonly encountered in primary care settings yet is often missed or suboptimally managed. A number of organizational and educational strategies to improve management of depression have been proposed. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies have not yet been subjected to systematic review.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of organizational and educational interventions to improve the management of depression in primary care settings.Data SourcesWe searched electronic medical and psychological databases from inception to March 2003 (MEDLINE, PsycLIT, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, United Kingdom National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database, Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group register, and Cochrane Effective Professional and Organisational Change Group specialist register); conducted correspondence with authors; and used reference lists. Search terms were related to depression, primary care, and all guidelines and organizational and educational interventions.Study SelectionWe selected 36 studies, including 29 randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials, 5 controlled before-and-after studies, and 2 interrupted time-series studies. Outcomes relating to management and outcome of depression were sought.Data ExtractionMethodological details and outcomes were extracted and checked by 2 reviewers. Summary relative risks were, where possible, calculated from original data and attempts were made to correct for unit of analysis error.Data SynthesisA narrative synthesis was conducted. Twenty-one studies with positive results were found. Strategies effective in improving patient outcome generally were those with complex interventions that incorporated clinician education, an enhanced role of the nurse (nurse case management), and a greater degree of integration between primary and secondary care (consultation-liaison). Telephone medication counseling delivered by practice nurses or trained counselors was also effective. Simple guideline implementation and educational strategies were generally ineffective.ConclusionsThere is substantial potential to improve the management of depression in primary care. Commonly used guidelines and educational strategies are likely to be ineffective. The implementation of the findings from this research will require substantial investment in primary care services and a major shift in the organization and provision of care.

The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review

Abstract: © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved. 1.1 Introduction: The breast cancer screening programmes in the United Kingdom currently invite women aged 50-70 years for screening mammography every 3 years. Since the time the screening programmes were established, there has been debate, at times sharply polarised, over the magnitude of their benefit and harm, and the balance between them. The expected major benefit is reduction in mortality from breast cancer. The major harm is overdiagnosis and its consequences; overdiagnosis refers to the detection of cancers on screening, which would not have become clinically apparent in the woman's lifetime in the absence of screening. Professor Sir Mike Richards, National Cancer Director, England, and Dr Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive Officer of Cancer Research UK, asked Professor Sir Michael Marmot to convene and chair an independent panel to review the evidence on benefits and harms of breast screening in the context of the UK breast screening programmes. The panel, authors of this report, reviewed the extensive literature and heard testimony from experts in the field who were the main contributors to the debate. The nature of information communicated to the public, which too has sparked debate, was not part of the terms of reference of the panel, which are listed in Appendix 1. 1.2 Relative mortality benefit: The purpose of screening is to advance the time of diagnosis so that prognosis can be improved by earlier intervention. A consequence of earlier diagnosis is that it increases the apparent incidence of breast cancer in a screened population and extends the average time from diagnosis to death, even if screening were to confer no benefit. The appropriate measure of benefit, therefore, is reduction in mortality from breast cancer in women offered screening compared with women not offered screening. In the panel's judgement, the best evidence for the relative benefit of screening on mortality reduction comes from 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of breast screening. Meta-analysis of these trials with 13 years of follow-up estimated a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality in women invited for screening. The relative reduction in mortality will be higher for women actually attending screening, but by how much is difficult to say because women who do not attend are likely to have a different background risk. Three types of uncertainties surround this estimate of 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality. The first is statistical: the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the relative risk (RR) reduction of 20% was 11-27%. The second is bias: there are a number of potential sources of distortion in the trials that have been widely discussed in the literature ranging from suboptimal randomisation to problems in adjudicating cause of death. The third is the relevance of these old trials to the current screening programmes. The panel acknowledged these uncertainties, but concluded that a 20% reduction is still the most reasonable estimate of the effect of the current UK screening programmes on breast cancer mortality. Most other reviews of the RCTs have yielded similar estimates of relative benefit. The RCTs were all conducted at least 20-30 years ago. More contemporary estimates of the benefit of breast cancer screening come from observational studies. The panel reviewed three types of observational studies. The first were ecological studies comparing areas, or time periods, when screening programmes were and were not in place. These have generated diverse findings, partly because of the major advances in treatment of breast cancer, which have a demonstrably larger influence on mortality trends than does screening, and partly because of the difficulty of excluding imbalances in other factors that could affect breast cancer mortality. The panel did not consider these studies helpful in estimating the effect of screening on mortality. The other two types of studies, case-control studies and incidence-based mortality studies, showed breast screening to confer a greater benefit than did the trials. Although these studies, in general, attempted to control for non-comparability of screened and unscreened women, the panel was concerned that residual bias could inflate the estimate of benefit. However, the panel notes that these studies' findings are in the same direction as the trials. 1.3 Absolute mortality benefit: Estimates of absolute benefit of screening have varied from one breast cancer death avoided for 2000 women invited to screening to 1 avoided for about 100 women screened, about a 20-fold difference. Major determinants of that large variation are the age of women screened, and the durations of screening and follow-up. The age of the women invited is important, as mortality from breast cancer increases markedly with age. The panel therefore applied the relative mortality reduction of 20% to achieve the observed cumulative absolute risk of breast cancer mortality over the ages 55-79 years for women in the United Kingdom, assuming that women who began screening at 50 years would gain no benefit in the first 5 years, but that the mortality reduction would continue for 10 years after screening ended. This yielded the estimate that for every 235 women invited to screening, one breast cancer death would be prevented; correspondingly 180 women would need to be screened to prevent one breast cancer death. Uncertainties in the figure of a 20% RR reduction would carry through to these estimates of absolute mortality benefit. Nonetheless, the panel's estimate of benefit is in the range of one breast cancer death prevented for B250 women invited, rather than the range of 1 in 2000. 1.4 Overdiagnosis: The major harm of screening considered by the panel was that of overdiagnosis. Given the definition of an overdiagnosed cancer, either invasive or non-invasive, as one diagnosed by screening, which would not otherwise have come to attention in the woman's lifetime, there is need for a long follow-up to assess the frequency of overdiagnosis. In the view of the panel, some cancers detected by screening will be overdiagnosed, but the uncertainty surrounding the extent of overdiagnosis is greater than that for the estimate of mortality benefit because there are few sources of reliable data. The issue for the UK screening programmes is the magnitude of overdiagnosis in women who have been in a screening programme from age 50 to 70, then followed for the rest of their lives. There are no data to answer this question directly. Any estimate will therefore be, at best, provisional. Although the definition of an overdiagnosed case, and thus the numerator in a ratio, is clear, the choice of denominator has been the source of further variability in published estimates. Different studies have used: only the cancers found by screening; cancers found during the whole screening period, both screen-detected and interval; cancers diagnosed during the screening period and for the remainder of the women's lifetime. The panel focused on two estimates: the first from a population perspective using as the denominator the number of breast cancers, both invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), diagnosed throughout the rest of a woman's lifetime after the age that screening begins, and the second from the perspective of a woman invited to screening using the total number of breast cancers diagnosed during the screening period as the denominator. The panel thought that the best evidence came from three RCTs that did not systematically screen the control group at the end of the screening period and followed these women for several more years. The frequency of overdiagnosis was of the order of 11% from a population perspective, and about 19% from the perspective of a woman invited to screening. Trials that included systematic screening of the control group at the end of the active part of the trial were not considered to provide informative estimates of the frequency of overdiagnosis. Information from observational studies was also considered. One method that has been used is investigation of time trends in incidence rates of breast cancer for different age groups over the period that population screening was introduced. The published results of these studies varied greatly and have been interpreted as providing either reassurance or cause for alarm. So great was the variation in results that the panel conducted an exercise by varying the assumptions and statistical methods underlying these studies, using the same data sets; estimates of overdiagnosis rates were found to vary across the range of 0-36% of invasive breast cancers diagnosed during the screening period. The panel had no reason to favour one set of estimates over another, and concluded that this method could give no reliable estimate of the extent of overdiagnosis. Were it possible to distinguish at screening those cancers that would not otherwise have come to attention from those that, untreated, would lead to death, the overdiagnosis problem could be much reduced, at least in terms of unnecessary worry and treatment. Currently this is not possible, so neither the woman nor her doctor can know whether a screen-detected cancer is an 'overdiagnosed' case or not. In particular, DCIS, most often diagnosed at screening, does not inevitably equate to overdiagnosis - screen-detected DCIS, after wide local excision (WLE) only, is associated with subsequent development of invasive breast cancer in 10% of women within 10 years. The consequences of overdiagnosis matter, women are turned into patients unnecessarily, surgery and other forms of cancer treatment are undertaken, and quality of life and psychological well being are adversely affected.