Peripartum hysterectomy: an economic analysis of direct healthcare costs using routinely collected data.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate resource use and costs associated with peripartum hysterectomy for the English National Health Service. DESIGN/SETTING: Analysis of linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episodes Statistics (CPRD-HES) data. POPULATION: Women undergoing peripartum hysterectomy between 1997 and 2013 and matched controls. METHODS: Inverse probability weighted generalised estimating equations were used to model the non-linear trend in healthcare service use and costs over time, accounting for missing data, adjusting for maternal age, body mass index, delivery year, smoking and socio-economic indicators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care, hospital outpatient and inpatient attendances and costs (UK 2015 prices). RESULTS: The study sample included 1362 women (192 cases and 1170 controls) who gave birth between 1997 and 2013; 1088 (153 cases and 935 controls) of these were deliveries between 2003 and 2013 when all categories of hospital resource use were available. Based on the 2003-2013 delivery cohort, peripartum hysterectomy was associated with a mean adjusted additional total cost of £5380 (95% CI £4436-6687) and a cost ratio of 1.76 (95% CI 1.61-1.98) over 5 years of follow up compared with controls. Inpatient costs, mostly incurred during the first year following surgery, accounted for 78% excluding or 92% including delivery-related costs. CONCLUSION: Peripartum hysterectomy is associated with increased healthcare costs driven largely by increased post-surgery hospitalisation rates. To reduce healthcare costs and improve outcomes for women who undergo hysterectomy, interventions that reduce avoidable repeat hospitalisations following surgery such as providing active follow up, treatment and support in the community should be considered. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A large amount of NHS data on peripartum hysterectomy suggests active community follow up could reduce costs, #HealthEconomics.

Effects of glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of intensive glycaemic control alone or as part of a multifactorial intervention on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes is not fully understood. In addition, the interaction of duration of diabetes diagnosis on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes is unclear. AIM: To quantify the effect of intensive treatment (i.e. intensive glucose lowering either alone or as part of a multifactorial intervention) on non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular disease (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality in patients with Type 2 diabetes. A secondary objective was to investigate the association between the treatment effect and trial-level characteristics such as average age, duration of Type 2 diabetes, the percentage male and the baseline event rate. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions from inception to 13 May 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated intensive treatment in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes. The review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number 42014013860). We pooled rates across studies using random effects meta-analysis and investigated study-level covariate associations using Bayesian meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of 19 RCTs were included: 16 examined non-fatal MI (n = 79 595), 14 non-fatal stroke (n = 78 568), 18 cardiovascular mortality (n = 83 938) and 18 all-cause mortality (n = 84 266). There was evidence to suggest that compared with standard care, intensive treatment reduced the risk of non-fatal MI [risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.96], but not non-fatal stroke (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86-1.07), CV mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94-1.06). Compared with standard care, multifactorial interventions alone reduced non-fatal stroke (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.0.87) but not non-fatal MI (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38-1.03), CV mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46-1.14) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05). There was no evidence to suggest that the effect of intensive treatment on cardiovascular and mortality outcomes was associated with mean age, mean duration of Type 2 diabetes and percentage of male patients across trials. There was evidence to suggest that the effectiveness of intensive treatment to reduce mortality outcomes increases as the baseline incidence of cardiovascular mortality [ratio of hazard = 0.82, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.65-0.99] increased across trials, but not baseline incidence of non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and all-cause mortality. Intensive glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions are predicted to have the desired beneficial effect of reducing CVD mortality in populations where the incidence rate is greater than about 6.3 CVD deaths per 1000 person-years or an average 10-year CVD risk of 6.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from non-fatal MIs, there was no evidence that intensive glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions reduced or increased the risk of cardiovascular and mortality outcomes. Intensive glucose-lowering and multifactorial interventions are likely to be beneficial in populations with a higher baseline incidence of CV mortality, but there was no evidence of an association with the mean duration of Type 2 diabetes. Multifactorial interventions had a much greater impact on non-fatal MI and non-fatal strokes. (PROSPERO registration no.: 42014013860).

Sedentary time in adults and the association with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and death: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Sedentary (sitting) behaviours are ubiquitous in modern society. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association of sedentary time with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. METHODS: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for terms related to sedentary time and health outcomes. Cross-sectional and prospective studies were included. RR/HR and 95% CIs were extracted by two independent reviewers. Data were adjusted for baseline event rate and pooled using a random-effects model. Bayesian predictive effects and intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (16 prospective, two cross-sectional) were included, with 794,577 participants. Fifteen of these studies were moderate to high quality. The greatest sedentary time compared with the lowest was associated with a 112% increase in the RR of diabetes (RR 2.12; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.61, 2.78), a 147% increase in the RR of cardiovascular events (RR 2.47; 95% CI 1.44, 4.24), a 90% increase in the risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.90; 95% CrI 1.36, 2.66) and a 49% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.49; 95% CrI 1.14, 2.03). The predictive effects and intervals were only significant for diabetes. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Sedentary time is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality; the strength of the association is most consistent for diabetes.