Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Surgery and Radiofrequency Ablation in Two Patient Cohorts: Metastatic Liver Cancer and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

AIMS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) with radiofrequency ablation and surgery in adult patients with metastatic liver cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two patient cohorts were assessed: liver oligometastases and HCC. For each patient cohort, a decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions over a 5-year horizon. A Markov process was embedded in the decision model to simulate the possible prognosis of cancer. Data on transition probabilities, survival, side-effects, quality of life and costs were obtained from published sources and the SABR Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) scheme. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with respect to quality-adjusted life-years. The robustness of the results was examined in a sensitivity analysis. Analyses were conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, which assumed that all three interventions were associated with the same cancer progression rates and mortality rates, SABR was the most cost-effective intervention for both patient cohorts. This conclusion was sensitive to the cancer progression rate, mortality rate and cost of interventions. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that SABR is cost-effective was 57% and 50% in liver oligometastases and HCC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a potential for SABR to be cost-effective for patients with liver oligometastases and HCC. This finding supports further investigation in clinical trials directly comparing SABR with surgery and radiofrequency ablation.

Risk-mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory skin and joint disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type: a cross-sectional patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.

Does vitamin D have any role in the improvement of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 1 diabetic patients?

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and vitamin D, nerve growth factor (NGF) and oxidative stress markers in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Ninety-six patients with type 1 diabetes were included in the study. All patients were evaluated for DPN with Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument. Fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, lipid parameters, 25 (OH) D3, NGF, total oxidant status, total antioxidant status and oxidative stress index were measured. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (27 %) had DPN (group 1) and 70 patients did not have neuropathy (group 2). When the groups were evaluated with respect to general demographic characteristics, no differences were detected. Mean age, duration of diabetes and retinopathy were found significantly higher in patients who had neuropathy. Glomerular filtration rate levels were significantly lower in the neuropathy group. Between the groups, 25 (OH) vitamin D levels were significantly lower in the neuropathy group, while there were no differences in NGF levels or in oxidative stress markers. Michigan neuropathy examination score was positively correlated with age, and diabetes duration was negatively correlated with 25 (OH) vitamin D levels. In addition, 25 (OH) vitamin D was positively correlated with NGF. In the logistic regression analysis to determine the independent variables that will affect the development of neuropathy, duration of diabetes was detected as the only factor (p = 0.039, OR = 1.071). CONCLUSION: It seems that the most important risk factor for the development of neuropathy in type 1 diabetic patients is disease duration.

A dual-centre, cohort comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The role of minimally invasive radical cystectomy as opposed to open surgery for bladder cancer is not yet established. We present comparative outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective cohort comparison of 158 patients from 2003-2008 undergoing open radical cystectomy (ORC) (n = 52), laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) (n =58) or robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) (n = 48) performed by a team of three surgeons at two hospitals. Peri-operative data, complication rates, length of hospital stay, oncological outcome (including lymph node status) and survival were recorded. Statistical analyses were adjusted to account for potential confounding factors such as ASA grade, gender, age, diversion type and final histology. RESULTS: RARC took longer than LRC and ORC. Patients were about 30 times more likely to have a transfusion if they had ORC than if they had RARC (p < 0.0001) and about eight times more likely to have a transfusion if they had LRC compared with RARC (p < 0.006). Patients were four times more likely to have a transfusion if they had ORC as compared with LRC (p < 0.007). Patients were four times more likely to have complications if they had ORC than RARC (p = 0.006) and about three times more likely to have complications with LRC than with RARC (p = 0.02). Hospital stay was mean 19 days after ORC, 16 days after LRC and 10 days after RARC. CONCLUSIONS: Despite study limitations, RARC had the lowest transfusion and complication rates and the shortest length of stay, although taking the longest to perform.

Urological day case surgery in elderly and medically unfit patients using sedoanalgesia: what are the limits?

OBJECTIVE: To assess how elderly and medically unfit patients cope with day case surgery in a urological unit using sedoanalgesia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (mean age 78 years, range 59-97) either over the age of 75 years, or with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status of 3 or 4 (58 patients) were studied before and after surgery to assess their medical condition, home circumstances and how they coped with their first day after the operation. RESULTS: Ninety patients found the procedure good or acceptable and 86 thought having their operation and going home on the same day was a good idea. CONCLUSION: Elderly and medically unfit patients can be treated safely with no serious complications using sedoanalgesia in a well organized Day Unit equipped with full monitoring facilities.