2 - Schools incorporating the Life Sciences and Medicine
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/2164/330
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer(Wiley-Blackwell, 2008) Hernández, Rodolfo Andrés; De Verteuil, Robyn; Fraser, Cynthia Mary; Vale, Luke David; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesObjective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.Item Randomised trial of glutamine and selenium supplemented parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients(BioMed Central, 2007-09-20) Andrews, Peter J.D.; Avenell, Alison; Noble, David W.; Campbell, Marion Kay; Battison, Claire G.; Croal, Bernard L.; Simpson, William G.; Norrie, John David; Vale, Luke David; Cook, Jonathan Alistair; De Verteuil, Robyn; Milne, Anne Catherine; Trials Management Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesBackground: Mortality rates in the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent hospital mortality rates in the UK remain high. Infections in Intensive Care are associated with a 2–3 times increased risk of death. It is thought that under conditions of severe metabolic stress glutamine becomes "conditionally essential". Selenium is an essential trace element that has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Approximately 23% of patients in Intensive Care require parenteral nutrition and glutamine and selenium are either absent or present in low amounts. Both glutamine and selenium have the potential to influence the immune system through independent biochemical pathways. Systematic reviews suggest that supplementing parenteral nutrition in critical illness with glutamine or selenium may reduce infections and mortality. Pilot data has shown that more than 50% of participants developed infections, typically resistant organisms. We are powered to show definitively whether supplementation of PN with either glutamine or selenium is effective at reducing new infections in critically ill patients. Methods/design: 2 × 2 factorial, pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The trial has an enrolment target of 500 patients. Inclusion criteria include: expected to be in critical care for at least 48 hours, aged 16 years or over, patients who require parenteral nutrition and are expected to have at least half their daily nutritional requirements given by that route. Allocation is to one of four iso-caloric, iso-nitrogenous groups: glutamine, selenium, both glutamine & selenium or no additional glutamine or selenium. Trial supplementation is given for up to seven days on the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent wards if practicable. The primary outcomes are episodes of infection in the 14 days after starting trial nutrition and mortality. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: To date more than 285 patients have been recruited to the trial from 10 sites in Scotland. Recruitment is due to finish in August 2008 with a further six months follow up. We expect to report the results of the trial in summer 2009. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number system. ISRCTN87144826Item Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer(Cambridge University Press, 2007) De Verteuil, Robyn; Hernández, Rodolfo Andrés; Vale, Luke David; Aberdeen Health Technology Assessment Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesObjectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society’s willingness to pay for an additional life year. Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average £300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30% chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay £30,000 for a life year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits following laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes and an additional £300 per patient. A judgement is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.Item Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.(2006-11) Murray, Alison Catherine; Lourenco, Tania; De Verteuil, Robyn; Hernández, Rodolfo Andrés; Fraser, Mary Fraser; McKinley, Aileen Joyce; Krukowski, Zygmunt H.; Vale, Luke David; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health Sciences