Prevention of HPV-Related Cancers in Norway: Cost-Effectiveness of Expanding the HPV Vaccination Program to Include Pre-Adolescent Boys

Background: Increasingly, countries have introduced female vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), causally linked to several cancers and genital warts, but few have recommended vaccination of boys. Declining vaccine prices and strong evidence of vaccine impact on reducing HPV-related conditions in both women and men prompt countries to reevaluate whether HPV vaccination of boys is warranted. Methods: A previously-published dynamic model of HPV transmission was empirically calibrated to Norway. Reductions in the incidence of HPV, including both direct and indirect benefits, were applied to a natural history model of cervical cancer, and to incidence-based models for other non-cervical HPV-related diseases. We calculated the health outcomes and costs of the different HPV-related conditions under a gender-neutral vaccination program compared to a female-only program. Results: Vaccine price had a decisive impact on results. For example, assuming 71% coverage, high vaccine efficacy and a reasonable vaccine tender price of $75 per dose, we found vaccinating both girls and boys fell below a commonly cited cost-effectiveness threshold in Norway ($83,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained) when including vaccine benefit for all HPV-related diseases. However, at the current market price, including boys would not be considered ‘good value for money.’ For settings with a lower cost-effectiveness threshold ($30,000/QALY), it would not be considered cost-effective to expand the current program to include boys, unless the vaccine price was less than$36/dose. Increasing vaccination coverage to 90% among girls was more effective and less costly than the benefits achieved by vaccinating both genders with 71% coverage. Conclusions: At the anticipated tender price, expanding the HPV vaccination program to boys may be cost-effective and may warrant a change in the current female-only vaccination policy in Norway. However, increasing coverage in girls is uniformly more effective and cost-effective than expanding vaccination coverage to boys and should be considered a priority

Societal views on orphan drugs: cross sectional survey of Norwegians aged 40 to 67

Objective To determine whether a general societal preference for prioritising treatment of rare diseases over common ones exists and could provide a justification for accepting higher cost effectiveness thresholds for orphan drugs

Influenza pandemic: perception of risk and individual precautions in a general population. Cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: An influenza pandemic may have considerable impact on health and societal functioning. The aim of this study was to explore people's reflections on the consequences of a pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional web-based survey of 1,168 Norwegians aged 16–82 years. The main outcome measures were answers to questions about a potential pandemic ("serious influenza epidemic"): statements about personal precautions including stockpiling Tamiflu(®), the perceived number of fatalities, the perceived effects of Tamiflu(®), the sources of information about influenza and trust in public information. RESULTS: While 80% of the respondents stated that they would be "careful about personal hygiene", only a few would stay away from work (2%), or move to an isolated place (4%). While 27% of respondents were uncertain about the number of fatalities during an influenza pandemic, 48% thought it would be lower than the estimate of Norwegian health authorities (0.05%–1%) and only 3% higher. At least half of the respondents thought that Tamiflu(® )might reduce the mortality risk, but less than 1% had personally purchased the drug. The great majority had received their information from the mass media, and only 9% directly from health authorities. Still the majority (65%) trusted information from the authorities, and only 9% reported overt distrust. CONCLUSION: In Norway, considerable proportions of people seem to consider the mortality risk during a pandemic less than health authorities do. Most people seem to be prepared to take some, but not especially disruptive, precautions

Communicating effectiveness of intervention for chronic diseases: what single format can replace comprehensive information?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is uncertainty about how GPs should convey information about treatment effectiveness to their patients in the context of cardiovascular disease. Hence we study the concordance of decisions based on one of four single information formats for treatment effectiveness with subsequent decisions based on all four formats combined with a pictorial representation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A randomized study comprising 1,169 subjects aged 40–59 in Odense, Denmark. Subjects were randomized to receive information in terms of absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), or prolongation of life (POL) without heart attack, and were asked whether they would consent to treatment. Subsequently the same information was conveyed with all four formats jointly accompanied by a pictorial presentation of treatment effectiveness. Again, subjects should consider consent to treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After being informed about all four formats, 52%–79% of the respondents consented to treatment, depending on level of effectiveness and initial information format. Overall, ARR gave highest concordance, 94% (95% confidence interval (91%; 97%)) between initial and final decision, but ARR was not statistically superior to the other formats.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Decisions based on ARR had the best concordance with decisions based on all four formats and pictorial representation, but the difference in concordance between the four formats was small, and it is unclear whether respondents fully understood the information they received.</p

Can postponement of an adverse outcome be used to present risk reductions to a lay audience? A population survey

BACKGROUND: For shared decision making doctors need to communicate the effectiveness of therapies such that patients can understand it and discriminate between small and large effects. Previous research indicates that patients have difficulties in understanding risk measures. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that lay people may be able to discriminate between therapies when their effectiveness is expressed in terms of postponement of an adverse disease event. METHODS: In 2004 a random sample of 1,367 non-institutionalized Danes aged 40+ was interviewed in person. The participants were asked for demographic information and asked to consider a hypothetical preventive drug treatment. The respondents were randomized to the magnitude of treatment effectiveness (heart attack postponement of 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 4 years and 8 years) and subsequently asked whether they would take such a therapy. They were also asked whether they had hypercholesterolemia or had experienced a heart attack. RESULTS: In total 58% of the respondents consented to the hypothetical treatment. The proportions accepting treatment were 39%, 52%, 56%, 64%, 67% and 73% when postponement was 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 4 years and 8 years respectively. Participants who thought that the effectiveness information was difficult to understand, were less likely to consent to therapy (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Lay people can discriminate between levels of treatment effectiveness when they are presented in terms of postponement of an adverse event. The results indicate that such postponement is a comprehensible measure of effectiveness

Laypersons' understanding of relative risk reductions: Randomised cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite increasing recognition of the importance of involving patients in decisions on preventive healthcare interventions, little is known about how well patients understand and utilise information provided on the relative benefits from these interventions. The aim of this study was to explore whether lay people can discriminate between preventive interventions when effectiveness is presented in terms of relative risk reduction (RRR), and whether such discrimination is influenced by presentation of baseline risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was a randomised cross-sectional interview survey of a representative sample (n = 1,519) of lay people with mean age 59 (range 40–98) years in Denmark. In addition to demographic information, respondents were asked to consider a hypothetical drug treatment to prevent heart attack. Its effectiveness was randomly presented as RRR of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 percent, and half of the respondents were presented with quantitative information on the baseline risk of heart attack. The respondents had also been asked whether they were diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia or had experienced a heart attack.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 873 (58%) of the respondents consented to the hypothetical treatment. While 49% accepted the treatment when RRR = 10%, the acceptance rate was 58–60% for RRR>10. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates across respondents irrespective of whether they had been presented with quantitative information on baseline risk or not.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study, lay people's decisions about therapy were only slightly influenced by the magnitude of the effect when it was presented in terms of RRR. The results may indicate that lay people have difficulties in discriminating between levels of effectiveness when they are presented in terms of RRR.</p

Norwegian Physicians' Knowledge of and Opinions about Evidence-Based Medicine: Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To answer five research questions: Do Norwegian physicians know about the three important aspects of EBM? Do they use EBM methods in their clinical practice? What are their attitudes towards EBM? Has EBM in their opinion changed medical practice during the last 10 years? Do they use EBM based information sources? Design: Cross sectional survey in 2006. Setting: Norway. Participants: 966 doctors who responded to a questionnaire (70% response rate). Results: In total 87% of the physicians mentioned the use of randomised clinical trials as a key aspect of EBM, while 53% of them mentioned use of clinical expertise and only 19% patients' values. 40% of the respondents reported that their practice had always been evidence-based. Many respondents experienced difficulties in using EBM principles in their clinical practice because of lack of time and difficulties in searching EBM based literature. 80% agreed that EBM helps physicians towards better practice and 52% that it improves patients' health. As reasons for changes in medical practice 86% of respondents mentioned medical progress, but only 39% EBM. Conclusions: The results of the study indicate that Norwegian physicians have a limited knowledge of the key aspects of EBM but a positive attitude towards the concept. They had limited experience in the practice of EBM and were rather indifferent to the impact of EBM on medical practice. For solving a patient problem, physicians would rather consult a colleague than searching evidence based resources such as the Cochrane Library

Diabetes: cost of illness in Norway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diabetes mellitus places a considerable burden on patients in terms of morbidity and mortality and on society in terms of costs. Costs related to diabetes are expected to increase due to increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to estimate the health care costs attributable to type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Norway in 2005.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data on inpatient hospital services, outpatient clinic visits, physician services, drugs, medical equipment, nutrition guidance, physiotherapy, acupuncture, foot therapy and indirect costs were collected from national registers and responses to a survey of 584 patients with diabetes. The study was performed with a prevalence approach. Uncertainty was explored by means of bootstrapping.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>When hospital stays with diabetes as a secondary diagnosis were excluded, the total costs were €293 million, which represents about 1.4% of the total health care expenditure. Pharmaceuticals accounted for €95 million (32%), disability pensions €48 million (16%), medical devices €40 million (14%) and hospital admissions €21 million (7%). Patient expenditures for acupuncture, physiotherapy and foot therapy were many times higher than expenditure for nutritional guidance. Indirect costs (lost production from job absenteeism) accounted for €70.1 million (24% of the €293 million) and included sick leave (€16.7 million), disability support and disability pensions (€48.2 million) and other indirect costs (€5.3 million). If all diabetes related hospital stays are included (primary- and secondary diagnosis) total costs amounts to €535 million, about 2.6% of the total health care expenditure in Norway.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Diabetes represents a considerable burden to society in terms of health care costs and productivity losses.</p

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and multiple treatments meta-analysis

Background: We conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease? Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument. Results: We included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant dif-ferences, and with no drugclass standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)- inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57). Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes