A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.

Inhaled Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data.

UNLABELLED: Chronic neuropathic pain, the most frequent condition affecting the peripheral nervous system, remains underdiagnosed and difficult to treat. Inhaled cannabis may alleviate chronic neuropathic pain. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the use of inhaled cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of individual patient data. We registered our protocol with PROSPERO CRD42011001182. We searched in Cochrane Central, PubMed, EMBASE, and AMED. We considered all randomized controlled trials investigating chronic painful neuropathy and comparing inhaled cannabis with placebo. We pooled treatment effects following a hierarchical random-effects Bayesian responder model for the population-averaged subject-specific effect. Our evidence synthesis of individual patient data from 178 participants with 405 observed responses in 5 randomized controlled trials following patients for days to weeks provides evidence that inhaled cannabis results in short-term reductions in chronic neuropathic pain for 1 in every 5 to 6 patients treated (number needed to treat = 5.6 with a Bayesian 95% credible interval ranging between 3.4 and 14). Our inferences were insensitive to model assumptions, priors, and parameter choices. We caution that the small number of studies and participants, the short follow-up, shortcomings in allocation concealment, and considerable attrition limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the review. The Bayes factor is 332, corresponding to a posterior probability of effect of 99.7%. PERSPECTIVE: This novel Bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials suggests that inhaled cannabis may provide short-term relief for 1 in 5 to 6 patients with neuropathic pain. Pragmatic trials are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and risks of this treatment.

Micronutrients in HIV: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 28.5 million people living with HIV are eligible for treatment (CD4<500), but currently have no access to antiretroviral therapy. Reduced serum level of micronutrients is common in HIV disease. Micronutrient supplementation (MNS) may mitigate disease progression and mortality. OBJECTIVES: We synthesized evidence on the effect of micronutrient supplementation on mortality and rate of disease progression in HIV disease. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central, AMED and CINAHL databases through December 2014, without language restriction, for studies of greater than 3 micronutrients versus any or no comparator. We built a hierarchical Bayesian random effects model to synthesize results. Inferences are based on the posterior distribution of the population effects; posterior distributions were approximated by Markov chain Monte Carlo in OpenBugs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From 2166 initial references, we selected 49 studies for full review and identified eight reporting on disease progression and/or mortality. Bayesian synthesis of data from 2,249 adults in three studies estimated the relative risk of disease progression in subjects on MNS vs. control as 0.62 (95% credible interval, 0.37, 0.96). Median number needed to treat is 8.4 (4.8, 29.9) and the Bayes Factor 53.4. Based on data reporting on 4,095 adults reporting mortality in 7 randomized controlled studies, the RR was 0.84 (0.38, 1.85), NNT is 25 (4.3, ∞). CONCLUSIONS: MNS significantly and substantially slows disease progression in HIV+ adults not on ARV, and possibly reduces mortality. Micronutrient supplements are effective in reducing progression with a posterior probability of 97.9%. Considering MNS low cost and lack of adverse effects, MNS should be standard of care for HIV+ adults not yet on ARV.