Search

Background: Single reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading. Methods: Based on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (£), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification. Results: CAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of £227 and £253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of £590 per 1,000 women screened. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner). Conclusions: Without improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To quantify decreases in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for given deterioration in clinical measures of vision; to describe the shape of these relationships; and to test whether the gradients of these relationships change with duration of visual loss. Design: A prospective, longitudinal study of patients treated with verteporfin photodynamic therapy in the United Kingdom National Health Service. Participants: Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated in 18 ophthalmology departments in the United Kingdom with expertise in management of neovascular AMD. Methods: Responses to HRQoL questionnaires (Short Form 36 [SF-36] and National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire [NEIVFQ]) and clinical measures of vision were recorded at baseline and at follow-up visits. Mixed regression models were used to characterize the relationships of interest. Main Outcome Measures: Measures of vision were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and contrast sensitivity (CS). The SF-36 physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS), SF-6D utility, and distance, near, and composite NEIVFQ scores were derived to characterize HRQoL. Results: The SF-6D, PCS, and MCS were linearly associated with BCVA; predicted decreases for a 5-letter drop in BCVA in the better-seeing eye were 0.0058, 0.245, and 0.546, respectively (all P<0.0001). Gradients were not influenced by duration of follow-up. Models predicting distance, near, and composite NEIVFQ scores from BCVA were quadratic; predicted decreases for a 5-letter drop in BCVA in the better-seeing eye were 5.08, 5.48, and 3.90, respectively (all P<0.0001). The BCVA predicted HRQoL scores more strongly than CS. Conclusions: Clinically significant deterioration in clinical measures of vision is associated with small decreases in generic and vision-specific HRQoL. Our findings are important for further research modeling the cost effectiveness of current and future interventions for neovascular AMD. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of giving tranexamic acid (TXA) to bleeding trauma patients in low, middle and high income settings., Methods: The CRASH-2 trial showed that TXA administration reduces the risk of death in bleeding trauma patients with a small but statistically significant increase in non-intensive care stay. A Markov model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of TXA in Tanzania, India and the United Kingdom (UK). The health outcome was the number of life years gained (LYs). Two costs were considered: the cost of administering TXA and the cost of additional days in hospital. Cost data were obtained from hospitals, World Health Organization (WHO) database and UK reference costs. Cost-effectiveness was measured in international dollars ($) per LY. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results to model assumptions., Findings: Administering TXA to bleeding trauma patients within three hours of injury saved an estimated 372, 315 and 755 LYs per 1,000 trauma patients in Tanzania, India and the UK respectively. The cost of giving TXA to 1,000 patients was $17,483 in Tanzania, $19,550 in India and $30,830 in the UK. The incremental cost of giving TXA versus not giving TXA was $18,025 in Tanzania, $20,670 in India and $48,002 in the UK. The estimated incremental cost per LY gained of administering TXA is $48, $66 and $64 in Tanzania, India and the UK respectively., Conclusion: Early administration of TXA to bleeding trauma patients is likely to be highly cost effective in low, middle and high income settings., Trial Registration: This paper uses data collected by the CRASH 2 trial: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN86750102, Clinicaltrials.govNCT00375258 and South African Clinical Trial Register DOH-27-0607-1919.