Cost-effectiveness of a physical exercise programme for residents of care homes: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Oomph! Wellness organises interactive exercise and activity classes (Oomph! classes) for older people in care homes. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of Oomph! classes. METHODS: Health-related quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire at three time points; 3 months and 1 week prior to the start of the classes and after 3 months of Oomph! classes. Costs included the costs of organising the classes, training instructors and health service use (General Practitioner (GP) and hospital outpatient visits). To determine the cost-effectiveness of Oomph! classes, total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) during the 3 months after initiation of the classes were compared to the total costs and QALYs of the 3 months prior to the classes and extrapolated to a 1-year time horizon. Uncertainty was taken into account using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen residents completed all three EQ-5D-5 L questionnaires. There was a decrease in mean health related quality of life per participant in the 3 months before Oomph! classes (0.56 to 0.52, p = 0.26) and an increase in the 3 months after the start of Oomph! classes (0.52 to 0.60, p = 0.06), but the changes were not statistically significant. There were more GP visits after the start of Oomph! classes and fewer hospital outpatient visits, leading to a slight decrease in NHS costs (mean £132 vs £141 per participant), but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.79). In the base case scenario, total costs for Oomph! classes were £113 higher per participant than without Oomph! classes (£677 vs £564) and total QALYs were 0.074 higher (0.594 vs 0.520). The incremental costs per QALY gained were therefore £1531. The 95 % confidence intervals around the cost/QALY gained varied from dominant to dominated, meaning there was large uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. Given a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, Oomph! classes had a 62 %-86 % probability of being cost-effective depending on the scenario used. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that Oomph! classes may be cost-effective, but further evidence is needed about its impact on health-related quality of life and health service use

Cost-effectiveness and pricing of antibacterial drugs.

Growing resistance to antibacterial agents has increased the need for the development of new drugs to treat bacterial infections. Given increasing pressure on limited health budgets, it is important to study the cost-effectiveness of these drugs, as well as their safety and efficacy, to find out whether or not they provide value for money and should be reimbursed. In this article, we systematically reviewed 38 cost-effectiveness analyses of new antibacterial agents. Most studies showed the new antibacterial drugs were cost-effective compared to older generation drugs. Drug pricing is a complicated process, involving different stakeholders, and has a large influence on cost-effectiveness. Value-based pricing is a method to determine the price of a drug at which it can be cost-effective. It is currently unclear what the influence of value-based pricing will be on the prices of new antibacterial agents, but an important factor will be the definition of 'value', which as well as the impact of the drug on patient health might also include other factors such as wider social impact and the health impact of disease

Time and travel costs incurred by women attending antenatal tests: A costing study

OBJECTIVE: to estimate the costs to women, their friends and family for different antenatal tests in the Down's syndrome (DS) screening pathway. DESIGN: questionnaire-based costing study. SETTING: eight maternity clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: pregnant women (n=574) attending an appointment for DS screening, NIPT or invasive testing between December 2013 and September 2014. MEASUREMENTS: using data collected from the questionnaires we calculated the total costs to women by multiplying the time spent at the hospital and travelling to and from it by the opportunity costs of the women and accompanying person and adding travel and childcare costs. Assumptions about the value of opportunity costs were tested in one-way sensitivity analyses. The main outcome measure was the mean cost to the women and friends/family for each test (DS screening, NIPT, and invasive testing). FINDINGS: mean costs to women and their family/friend were £33.96 per visit, of which £22.47 were time costs, £9.15 were travel costs and £2.34 were childcare costs. Costs were lowest for NIPT (£22), £32 for DS screening (£44 if combined with NIPT), and highest for invasive testing (£60). Sensitivity analysis revealed that variations around the value of leisure time opportunity costs had the largest influence on the results. KEY CONCLUSIONS: there are considerable costs to women, their friends and family when attending different tests in the DS screening pathway. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: when assessing the cost-effectiveness of changes to this pathway, costs to women should be considered

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders: cost analysis of NIPD and invasive testing pathways

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the costs of offering non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for single gene disorders compared to traditional invasive testing to inform NIPD implementation into clinical practice. METHOD: Total costs of diagnosis using NIPD or invasive testing pathways were compared for a representative set of single gene disorders. RESULTS: For autosomal dominant conditions, where NIPD molecular techniques are straightforward, NIPD cost £314 less than invasive testing. NIPD for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions requires more complicated technical approaches and total costs were more than invasive testing, e.g. NIPD for spinal muscular atrophy was £1090 more than invasive testing. Impact of test uptake on costs was assessed using sickle cell disorder as an example. Anticipated high uptake of NIPD resulted in an incremental cost of NIPD over invasive testing of £48 635 per 100 pregnancies at risk of sickle cell disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Total costs of NIPD are dependent upon the complexity of the testing technique required. Anticipated increased demand for testing may have economic implications for prenatal diagnostic services. Ethical issues requiring further consideration are highlighted including directing resources to NIPD when used for information only and restricting access to safe tests if it is not cost-effective to develop NIPD for rare conditions

Genetic variation at CHRNA5-CHRNA3-CHRNB4 interacts with smoking status to influence body mass index

Cigarette smoking is associated with lower body mass index (BMI), and a commonly cited reason for unwillingness to quit smoking is a concern about weight gain. Common variation in the CHRNA5-CHRNA3-CHRNB4 gene region (chromosome 15q25) is robustly associated with smoking quantity in smokers, but its association with BMI is unknown. We hypothesized that genotype would accurately reflect smoking exposure and that, if smoking were causally related to weight, it would be associated with BMI in smokers, but not in never smokers

Uptake, outcomes, and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing for Down's syndrome into NHS maternity care: prospective cohort study in eight diverse maternity units.

OBJECTIVE:  To investigate the benefits and costs of implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into the NHS maternity care pathway. DESIGN:  Prospective cohort study. SETTING:  Eight maternity units across the United Kingdom between 1 November 2013 and 28 February 2015. PARTICIPANTS:  All pregnant women with a current Down's syndrome risk on screening of at least 1/1000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  Outcomes were uptake of NIPT, number of cases of Down's syndrome detected, invasive tests performed, and miscarriages avoided. Pregnancy outcomes and costs associated with implementation of NIPT, compared with current screening, were determined using study data on NIPT uptake and invasive testing in combination with national datasets. RESULTS:  NIPT was prospectively offered to 3175 pregnant women. In 934 women with a Down's syndrome risk greater than 1/150, 695 (74.4%) chose NIPT, 166 (17.8%) chose invasive testing, and 73 (7.8%) declined further testing. Of 2241 women with risks between 1/151 and 1/1000, 1799 (80.3%) chose NIPT. Of 71 pregnancies with a confirmed diagnosis of Down's syndrome, 13/42 (31%) with the diagnosis after NIPT and 2/29 (7%) after direct invasive testing continued, resulting in 12 live births. In an annual screening population of 698 500, offering NIPT as a contingent test to women with a Down's syndrome screening risk of at least 1/150 would increase detection by 195 (95% uncertainty interval -34 to 480) cases with 3368 (2279 to 4027) fewer invasive tests and 17 (7 to 30) fewer procedure related miscarriages, for a non-significant difference in total costs (£-46 000, £-1 802 000 to £2 661 000). The marginal cost of NIPT testing strategies versus current screening is very sensitive to NIPT costs; at a screening threshold of 1/150, NIPT would be cheaper than current screening if it cost less than £256. Lowering the risk threshold increases the number of Down's syndrome cases detected and overall costs, while maintaining the reduction in invasive tests and procedure related miscarriages. CONCLUSIONS:  Implementation of NIPT as a contingent test within a public sector Down's syndrome screening programme can improve quality of care, choices for women, and overall performance within the current budget. As some women use NIPT for information only, the Down's syndrome live birth rate may not change significantly. Future research should consider NIPT uptake and informed decision making outside of a research setting

Statistical power considerations in genotype-based recall randomized controlled trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are often underpowered for validating gene-treatment interactions. Using published data from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), we examined power in conventional and genotype-based recall (GBR) trials. We calculated sample size and statistical power for genemetformin interactions (vs. placebo) using incidence rates, gene-drug interaction effect estimates and allele frequencies reported in the DPP for the rs8065082 SLC47A1 variant, a metformin transported encoding locus. We then calculated statistical power for interactions between genetic risk scores (GRS), metformin treatment and intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) given a range of sampling frames, clinical trial sample sizes, interaction effect estimates, and allele frequencies; outcomes were type 2 diabetes incidence (time-to-event) and change in small LDL particles (continuous outcome). Thereafter, we compared two recruitment frameworks: GBR (participants recruited from the extremes of a GRS distribution) and conventional sampling (participants recruited without explicit emphasis on genetic characteristics). We further examined the influence of outcome measurement error on statistical power. Under most simulated scenarios, GBR trials have substantially higher power to observe gene-drug and gene-lifestyle interactions than same-sized conventional RCTs. GBR trials are becoming popular for validation of gene-treatment interactions; our analyses illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this design

Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in primary dysmenorrhoea. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from three randomised, double blind, placebo and active controlled trials of rofecoxib. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief and the proportion of patients who had taken rescue medication over 12 hours were calculated. Information was collected on adverse effects. RESULTS: For single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo, the NNTs (with 95% CI) for at least 50% pain relief were 3.2 (2.4 to 4.5) at six, 3.1 (2.4 to 9.0) at eight, and 3.7 (2.8 to 5.6) at 12 hours. For naproxen sodium 550 mg they were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.4) at six, 3.0 (2.3 to 4.2) at eight, and 3.8 (2.7 to 6.1) at 12 hours. The proportion of patients who needed rescue medication within 12 hours was 27% with rofecoxib 50 mg, 29% with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 50% with placebo. In the single-dose trial, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 8% (4/49) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 12% (6/49) with ibuprofen 400 mg, and 6% (3/49) with placebo. In the other two multiple dose trials, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 23% (42/179) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 24% (45/181) with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 18% (33/178) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose rofecoxib 50 mg provided similar pain relief to naproxen sodium 550 mg over 12 hours. The duration of analgesia with rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of naproxen sodium 550 mg. Adverse effects were uncommon suggesting safety in short-term use of rofecoxib and naproxen sodium. Future research should include restriction on daily life and absence from work or school as outcomes

Neutral tumor evolution?

No abstract available