A decision-analytic Markov model to compare the cost-utility of anterior repair augmented with synthetic mesh compared with non-mesh repair in women with surgically treated prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a mesh-augmented anterior vaginal wall repair compared with a non-mesh fascial plication repair. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. SETTING: Data for outcomes of different surgical techniques were derived from systematic reviews and recent publications. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model, developed in TreeAge Pro 2007(®) , was used to compare the cost-utility of mesh and non-mesh anterior vaginal wall repairs. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of different scenarios and assumptions on results from the model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Under base case assumptions at 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for mesh-augmented anterior repairs was £15 million per QALY. Sensitivity analysis found no plausible model inputs that could make a mesh repair cost-effective by conventional criteria. This was mostly because of the extra costs associated with the price of the mesh, treating mesh erosion and difficulty finding data that support a lower reoperation rate for mesh anterior wall repairs. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests that the use of mesh is not cost-effective.

Introducing HPV vaccine and scaling up screening procedures to prevent deaths from cervical cancer in Japan: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccination of 11-year-old girls against human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and increased screening coverage to prevent cervical cancer in Japan where the coverage of Papanicolaou smears is very low. DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. SETTING: Japan, 2010. POPULATION: The female Japanese population aged 11 years or older. METHODS: A Markov model of the natural history of cervical cancer was constructed to compare six strategies: i.e. a screening coverage rate of 20, 50 and 80% with and without routine vaccination at age 11. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cervical cancer incidence, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Expanding the coverage of Papanicolaou smears from the current level of 20-50 and 80% yields a 45.5 and 63.1% reduction in cervical cancer incidence, respectively. Impact of combined strategies increases with coverage. Coverages of 20, 50 and 80% showed a 66.1, 80.9 and 86.8% reduction in disease, respectively. The costs of strategies with vaccination are four times higher than the cost of strategies without vaccination. Vaccinating all 11-year-old girls with bivalent vaccines with a Papanicolaou smear coverage rate of 50% is likely to be the most cost-effective option among the six strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of HPV vaccination in Japan is cost-effective as in other countries. It is more cost-effective to increase the coverage of the Papanicolaou smear along with the universal administration of HPV vaccine.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: cost-utility of different screening strategies based on a woman's individual risk of disease.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The cost-effectiveness of eight strategies for screening for gestational diabetes (including no screening) was estimated with respect to the level of individual patient risk. METHODS: Cost-utility analysis using a decision analytic model populated with efficacy evidence pooled from recent randomised controlled trials, from the funding perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. Seven screening strategies using various combinations of screening and diagnostic tests were tested in addition to no screening. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime. RESULTS: The strategy that has the greatest likelihood of being cost-effective is dependent on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus for each individual woman. When gestational diabetes mellitus risk is <1% then the no screening/treatment strategy is cost-effective; where risk is between 1.0% and 4.2% fasting plasma glucose followed by OGTT is most likely to be cost-effective; and where risk is >4.2%, universal OGTT is most likely to be cost-effective. However, acceptability of the test alters the most cost-effective strategy. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Screening for gestational diabetes can be cost-effective. The best strategy is dependent on the underlying risk of each individual and the acceptability of the tests used. The current study suggests that if a woman's individual risk of gestational diabetes could be accurately predicted, then healthcare resource allocation could be improved by providing an individualised screening strategy.

Virtual outreach: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of joint teleconferenced medical consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that virtual outreach would reduce offers of hospital follow-up appointments and reduce numbers of medical interventions and investigations, reduce numbers of contacts with the health care system, have a positive impact on patient satisfaction and enablement, and lead to improvements in patient health status. To perform an economic evaluation of virtual outreach. DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial comparing joint teleconsultations between GPs, specialists and patients with standard outpatient referral. It was accompanied by an economic evaluation. SETTING: The trial was centred on the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust in Shropshire. The project teams recruited and trained a total of 134 GPs from 29 practices and 20 consultant specialists. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 3170 patients were referred, of whom 2094 consented to participate in the study and were eligible for inclusion. In all, 1051 patients were randomised to the virtual outreach group and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments. The patients were followed 6 months after their index consultation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomised to virtual outreach underwent a joint teleconsultation, in which they attended the general practice surgery where they and their GP consulted with a hospital specialist via a videolink between the hospital and the practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included offers of follow-up outpatient appointments, numbers of tests, investigations, procedures, treatments and contacts with primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction (Ware Specific Visit Questionnaire), enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument) and quality of life (Short Form-12 and Child Health Questionnaire). An economic evaluation of the costs and consequences of the intervention was undertaken. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Patients in the virtual outreach group were more likely to be offered a follow-up appointment. Significant differences in effects were observed between the two sites and across different specialities. Virtual outreach increased the offers of follow-up appointments more in Shrewsbury than in London, and more in ENT and orthopaedics than in the other specialities. Fewer tests and investigations were ordered in the virtual outreach group, by an average of 0.79 per patient. In the 6-month period following the index consultation, there were no significant differences overall in number of contacts with general practice, outpatient visits, accident and emergency contacts, inpatient stays, day surgery and inpatient procedures or prescriptions between the randomised groups. Tests of interaction indicated that virtual outreach decreased the number of tests and investigations, particularly in patients referred to gastroenterology, and increased the number of outpatient visits, particularly in those referred to orthopaedics. Patient satisfaction was greater after a virtual outreach consultation than after a standard outpatient consultation, with no heterogeneity between specialities or sites. However, patient enablement after the index consultation, and the physical and psychological scores of the Short Form-12 for adults and the scores on the Child Health Questionnaire for children under 16, did not differ between the randomised groups at 6 months' follow-up. NHS costs over 6 months were greater for the virtual outreach consultations than for conventional outpatients, pound 724 and pound 625 per patient, respectively. The index consultation accounted for this excess. Cost and time savings to patients were found. Estimated productivity losses were also less in the virtual outreach group. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual outreach consultations result in significantly higher levels of patient satisfaction than standard outpatient appointments and lead to substantial reductions in numbers of tests and investigations, but they are variably associated with increased rates of offer of follow-up according to speciality and site. Changes in costs and technological advances may improve the relative position of virtual consultations in future. The extent to which virtual outreach is implemented will probably be dependent on factors such as patient demand, costs, and the attitudes of staff working in general practice and hospital settings. Further research could involve long-term follow-up of patients in the virtual outreach trial to determine downstream outcomes and costs; further study into the effectiveness and costs of virtual outreach used for follow-up appointments, rather than first-time referrals; and whether the costs of virtual outreach could be substantially reduced without adversely affecting the quality of the consultation if nurses or other members of the primary care team were to undertake the hosting of the joint teleconsultations in place of the GP. Qualitative work into the attitudes of the patients, GPs and hospital specialists would also be valuable.

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) with or without stenting in patients with single-vessel disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). DESIGN: Multi-centre randomised trial without blinding. The computer-generated sequence of randomised assignments was stratified by centre, allocated participants in blocks and was concealed using a centralised telephone facility. SETTING: Four tertiary cardiothoracic surgery centres in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ischaemic heart disease with at least 50% proximal stenosis of the LAD, suitable for either PTCA or MIDCAB, and with no significant disease in another vessel. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomised to PTCA had local anaesthetic and underwent PTCA according to the method preferred by the operator carrying out the procedure. Patients randomised to MIDCAB had general anaesthetic. The chest was opened through an 8-10-cm left anterior thoracotomy. The ribs were retracted and the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) harvested. The pericardium was opened in the line of the LAD to confirm the feasibility of operation. The distal LITA was anastomosed end-to-side to an arteriotomy in the LAD. All operators were experienced in carrying out MIDCAB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was survival free from cardiac-related events. Relevant events were death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularisation and recurrence of symptomatic angina or clinical signs of ischaemia during an exercise tolerance test at annual follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were complications, functional outcome, disease-specific and generic quality of life, health and social services resource use and their costs. RESULTS: A total of 12,828 consecutive patients undergoing an angiogram were logged at participating centres from November 1999 to December 2001. Of the 1091 patients with proximal stenosis of the LAD, 127 were eligible and consented to take part; 100 were randomised and the remaining 27 consented to follow-up. All randomised participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of survival free from cardiac-related events, which found a non-significant benefit from MIDCAB. Cumulative hazard rates at 12 months were estimated to be 7.1 and 9.2% for MIDCAB and PTCA, respectively. There were no important differences between MIDCAB and PTCA with respect to angina symptoms or disease-specific or generic quality of life. The total NHS procedure costs were 1648 British pounds and 946 British pounds for MIDCAB and PTCA, respectively. The costs of resources used during 1 year of follow-up were 1033 British pounds and 843 British pounds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study found no evidence that MIDCAB was more effective than PTCA. The procedure costs of MIDCAB were observed to be considerably higher than those of PTCA. Given these findings, it is unlikely that MIDCAB represents a cost-effective use of resources in the reference population. Recent advances in cardiac surgery mean that surgeons now tend to carry out off-pump bypass grafting via a sternotomy instead of MIDCAB. At the same time, cardiologists are treating more patients with multi-vessel disease by PTCA. Future primary research should focus on this comparison. Other small trials of PTCA versus MIDCAB have now finished and a more conclusive answer to the original objective could be provided by a systematic review.

Virtual outreach: economic evaluation of joint teleconsultations for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypotheses that, compared with conventional outpatient consultations, joint teleconsultation (virtual outreach) would incur no increased costs to the NHS, reduce costs to patients, and reduce absences from work by patients and their carers. DESIGN: Cost consequences study alongside randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two hospitals in London and Shrewsbury and 29 general practices in inner London and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 3170 patients identified; 2094 eligible for inclusion and willing to participate. 1051 randomised to virtual outreach and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NHS costs, patient costs, health status (SF-12), time spent attending index consultation, patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Overall six months costs were greater for the virtual outreach consultations ( pound 724 per patient) than for conventional outpatient appointments ( pound 625): difference in means pound 99 ($162; 138) (95% confidence interval pound 10 to pound 187, P=0.03). If the analysis is restricted to resource items deemed "attributable" to the index consultation, six month costs were still greater for virtual outreach: difference in means pound 108 ( pound 73 to pound 142, P < 0.0001). In both analyses the index consultation accounted for the excess cost. Savings to patients in terms of costs and time occurred in both centres: difference in mean total patient cost pound 8 ( pound 5 to pound 10, P < 0.0001). Loss of productive time was less in the virtual outreach group: difference in mean cost pound 11 ( pound 10 to pound 12, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The main hypothesis that virtual outreach would be cost neutral is rejected, but the hypotheses that costs to patients and losses in productivity would be lower are supported.

Design and performance of a multicentre, randomized controlled trial of teleconsulting.

We have designed and performed a multicentre, randomized controlled trial of teleconsulting. The trial investigated the effectiveness and cost implications in rural and inner-city settings of using videoconferencing as an alternative to general practitioner referral to a hospital specialist. The participating general practitioners referred a total of 3170 patients who satisfied the entry criteria. Of these, 1040 (33%) failed to provide consent or otherwise refused to participate in the trial. Of the patients recruited to the trial, a total of 1902 (91%) completed and returned the baseline questionnaire. Although the trial was successful in recruiting sufficient patients and in obtaining high questionnaire response rates, the findings will require careful interpretation to take account of the limits which the protocol placed on the ability of general practitioners to select patients for referral.

Joint teleconsultations (virtual outreach) versus standard outpatient appointments for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The current model of general practitioner referral of patients to hospital specialists in the UK is sometimes associated with unnecessary duplication of investigations and treatments. We aimed to compare joint teleconsultations between general practitioners, specialists, and patients (virtual outreach) with standard outpatient referral. METHODS: Virtual outreach services were established in London and Shrewsbury. The general practitioners referred 3170 patients, of whom 2094 consented to participate in the study and were eligible for inclusion. 1051 patients were randomly assigned virtual outreach, and 1043 standard outpatient appointments. We followed up the patients for 6 months after their index consultation. The primary outcome measure was the offer of a follow-up outpatient appointment. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: More patients in the virtual outreach group than the standard group were offered a follow-up appointment (502 [52%] vs 400 [41%], odds ratio 1.52 [95% CI 1.27-1.82], p<0.0001). Significant differences in effects were observed between the two sites (p=0.009) and across different specialties (p<0.0001). Virtual outreach increased the offers of follow-up appointments more in Shrewsbury than in London, and more in ear, nose, and throat surgery and orthopaedics than in the other specialties. Fewer tests and investigations were ordered in the virtual outreach group by an average of 0.79 per patient (0.37-1.21, p=0.0002). Patients' satisfaction (analysed per protocol) was greater after a virtual outreach consultation than after a standard outpatient consultation (mean difference 0.33 scale points [95% CI 0.23-0.43], p<0.0001), with no heterogeneity between specialties or sites. INTERPRETATION: The trial showed that allocation of patients to virtual outreach consultations is variably associated with increased offers of follow-up appointments according to site and specialty, but leads to significant increases in patients' satisfaction and substantial reductions in tests and investigations. Efficient operation of such services will require appropriate selection of patients, significant service reorganisation, and provision of logistical support.

A randomized controlled trial assessing the health economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective.

A randomized controlled trial was carried out to measure the cost-effectiveness of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional outpatient dermatology care for patients from urban and rural areas. One urban and one rural health centre were linked to a regional hospital in Northern Ireland by ISDN at 128 kbit/s. Over two years, 274 patients required a hospital outpatient dermatology referral--126 patients (46%) were randomized to a telemedicine consultation and 148 (54%) to a conventional hospital outpatient consultation. Of those seen by telemedicine, 61% were registered with an urban practice, compared with 71% of those seen conventionally. The clinical outcomes of the two types of consultation were similar--almost half the patients were managed after a single consultation with the dermatologist. The observed marginal cost per patient of the initial realtime teledermatology consultation was 52.85 Pounds for those in urban areas and 59.93 Pounds per patient for those from rural areas. The observed marginal cost of the initial conventional consultation was 47.13 Pounds for urban patients and 48.77 Pounds for rural patients. The total observed costs of teledermatology were higher than the costs of conventional care in both urban and rural areas, mainly because of the fixed equipment costs. Sensitivity analysis using a real-world scenario showed that in urban areas the average costs of the telemedicine and conventional consultations were about equal, while in rural areas the average cost of the telemedicine consultation was less than that of the conventional consultation.

An educational tool to illustrate cost-effectiveness in diagnostic pathways for coronary artery disease.

Rapid increases in healthcare costs have led to increased interest in the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions. Coronary artery disease is responsible for a significant share of total healthcare spending, and therefore economic evaluations of medical procedures to treat the condition are potentially very important. We have developed a spreadsheet model as an educational tool that can be used to illustrate cost-effectiveness in the selection of diagnostic pathways (a "work-up" strategy of tests designed to reach a final diagnosis) for coronary artery disease. The model, in Microsoft Excel, is easy to use, requiring no specialist computer knowledge. It is menu-driven and the user navigates the model via a number of on-screen buttons. A data entry screen allows the user to customize the data for the key model parameters, making it possible to take into account location-specific features. The data entry screen also allows the user to undertake sensitivity analysis and rate "what if" scenarios. The model demonstrates how sensitive the cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic pathways is to the pretest probability of disease. This package could also be used as a decision support tool, although it is important to recognize some of its limitations for this purpose.