Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage in patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis

Objective: Published evidence indicates that surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic drainage for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus endoscopic drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Design: This trial-based cost-utility analysis (ISRCTN04572410) was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and during a 79-month time horizon. During the trial the details of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and pancreatic insufficiency were collected. The resource use was varied in the sensitivity analysis based on a review of the literature. The health outcome was the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), generated using EQ-5D data collected during the trial. There were no pancreas-related deaths in the trial. All-cause mortality from the trial was incorporated into the QALY estimates in the sensitivity analysis. Setting: Hospital. Participants: Patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness. Results: The result of the base-case analysis was that surgical drainage dominated endoscopic drainage, being both more effective and less costly. The sensitivity analysis varied mortality and resource use and showed that the surgical option remained dominant in all scenarios. The probability of cost-effectiveness for surgical drainage was 100% for the base case and 82% in the assessed most conservative case scenario. Conclusions: In obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical drainage is highly cost-effective compared with endoscopic drainage from a UK NHS perspective

High Irritation and Removal Rates After Plate or Nail Fixation in Patients With Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures

Background: Studies comparing plate with intramedullary nail fixation of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures show faster recovery in the plate group and implant-related complications in both groups after short-term followup (6 or 12 months). Knowledge of disability, complications, and removal rates beyond the first postoperative year will help surgeons in making a decision regarding optimal implant choice. However, comparative studies with followup beyond the first year or two are scarce. Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) Does plate fixation or intramedullary nail fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures result in less disability? (2) Which type of fixation, plate or intramedullary, is more frequently associated with implant-related irritation and implant removal? (3) Is plate or intramedullary fixation associated with postoperative complications beyond the first postoperative year? Methods: Between January 2011 and August 2012, patients with displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled and randomized to plate or intramedullary nail fixation. A total of 58 patients with plate and 62 patients with intramedullary nails initially were enrolled. Minimum followup was 30 months (mean, 39 months; range, 30–51 months). Two patients (3%) with plate fixation and two patients (3%) with intramedullary nails were lost to followup. The Qui

Comparing the effectiveness of bevacizumab to ranibizumab in patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration. The BRAMD study

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of bevacizumab and ranibizumab in the treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design: Multicentre, randomized, controlled, double-masked clinical trial in 327 patients. The noninferiority margin was 4 letters. Patients: Patients ≥ 60 years of age with primary or recurrent sub- or juxtafoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to AMD with a total area of CNV < 12 disc areas and a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) score between 20 and 78 letters on an EDTRS like chart in the study eye. Methods: Monthly intravitreal injections with 1.25 mg bevacizumab or 0.5 mg ranibizumab were given during one year. Intention to treat with last observation carried forward analysis was performed. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the change in BCVA in the study eye from baseline to 12 months. Results: The mean gain in BCVA was 5.1 (±14.1) letters in the bevacizumab group (n = 161) and 6.4 (±12.2) letters in the ranibizumab group (n = 166) (p = 0.37). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in BCVA gain was 3.72. The response to bevacizumab was more varied; 24% of patients showed a gain of ≥15 letters, 11% a loss of ≥15 letters and 65% a gain or loss < 15 letters compared to 19%, 5% and 76% respectively for ranibizumab (p = 0.038). No significant differences in absolute CRT and CRT change (p = 0.13) or in the presence of subretinal or intraretinal fluid (p = 0.14 and 0.10, respectively) were observed. However, the presence of any fluid on SD-OCT (subretinal and/or intraretinal) differed significantly (p = 0.020), with definite fluid on SD-OCT in 45% of the patients for bevacizumab versus 31% for ranibizumab. The occurrence of serious adverse events and adverse events was similar, with 34 SAEs and 256 AEs in the bevacizumab group and 37 SAEs and 299 AEs in the ranibizumab group (p = 0.87 and p = 0.48, respectively). Conclusions: Bevacizumab was not inferior to ranibizumab. The response to bevacizumab was more varied with higher percentages of both gainers and losers and more frequently observed retinal fluid on SD-OCT at 12 months when compared to the ranibizumab group. Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl NTR1704

Comparing the effectiveness and costs of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: A randomized clinical trial (the BRDME study)

Background: The effectiveness of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has been proven with large clinical trials. For bevacizumab only two clinical trials have been published and a head-to-head comparison is lacking to date. However, if proved non-inferior to ranibizumab, use of the off-label bevacizumab could reduce costs enormously without a loss in visual acuity. A cost-effectiveness study has been designed to substantiate this hypothesis. Aim: To compare the effectiveness and costs of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab given as monthly intravitreal injections during 6 months in patients with diabetic macular edema. It is hypothesized that bevacizumab is non-inferior to ranibizumab regarding its effectiveness. Design: This is a randomized, controlled, double masked, clinical trial in 246 patients in seven academic trial centres in The Netherlands. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye from baseline to month 6. Secondary outcomes are the proportions of patients with a gain or loss of 15 letters or more or a BCVA of 20/40 or more at 6 months, the change in leakage on fluorescein angiography and the change in foveal thickness by optical coherence tomography at 6 months, the number of adverse events in 6 months, and the costs per quality adjusted life-year of the two treatments

Operative treatment of dislocated midshaft clavicular fractures: Plate or intramedullary nail fixation?: A randomized controlled trial

Copyrigh

Refining the criteria for immediate total-body CT after severe trauma

Objectives: Initial trauma care could potentially be improved when conventional imaging and selective CT scanning is omitted and replaced by immediate total-body CT (iTBCT) scanning. Because of the potentially increased radiation exposure by this diagnostic approach, proper selection of the severely injured patients is mandatory. Methods: In the REACT-2 trial, severe trauma patients were randomized to iTBCT or conventional imaging and selective CT based on predefined criteria regarding compromised vital parameters, clinical suspicion of severe injuries, or high-risk trauma mechanisms in five trauma centers. By logistic regression analysis with backward selection on the 15 study inclusion criteria, a revised set of criteria was derived and subsequently tested for prediction of severe injury and shifts in radiation exposure. Results: In total, 1083 patients were enrolled with median ISS of 20 (IQR 9–29) and median GCS of 13 (IQR 3–15). Backward logistic regression resulted in a revised set consisting of nine original and one adjusted criteria. Positive predictive value improved from 76% (95% CI 74–79%) to 82% (95% CI 80–85%). Sensitivity decreased by 9% (95% CI 7–11%). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve remained equal and was 0.80 (95% CI 0.77–0.83), original set 0.80 (95% CI 0.77–0.83). The revised set retains 8.78 mSv (95% CI 6.01–11.56) for 36% of the non-severely injured patients. Conclusions: Selection criteria for iTBCT can be reduced from 15 to 10 clinically criteria. This improves the positive predictive value for severe injury and reduces radiation exposure for less severely injured patients. Key Points: • Selection criteria for iTBCT can be reduced to 10 clinically useful criteria. • This reduces radiation exposure in 36% of less severely injured patients. • Overall discriminative capacity for selection of severely injured patients remained equal