ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-directed therapy for infants and young children with cystic fibrosis (CF), rather than standard therapy, was justified on the grounds of a decrease in average costs and whether the use of BAL reduced treatment costs associated with hospital admissions. STUDY DESIGN: Costs were assessed in a randomized controlled trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand on infants diagnosed with CF after newborn screening and assigned to receive either BAL-directed or standard therapy until they reached 5 years of age. A health care funder perspective was adopted. Resource use measurement was based on standardized data collection forms administered for patients across all sites. Unit costs were obtained primarily from government schedules. RESULTS: Mean costs per child during the study period were Australian dollars (AUD)92â860 in BAL-directed therapy group and AUD90â958 in standard therapy group (mean difference AUD1902, 95% CI AUD-27â782 to 31â586, P = .90). Mean hospital costs per child during the study period were AUD57â302 in the BAL-directed therapy group and AUD66â590 in the standard therapy group (mean difference AUD-9288; 95% CI AUD-35â252 to 16â676, P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: BAL-directed therapy did not result in either lower mean hospital admission costs or mean costs overall compared with managing patients with CF by a standard protocol based upon clinical features and oropharyngeal culture results alone. Following on our previous findings that BAL-directed treatment offers no clinical advantage over standard therapy at age 5 years, flexible bronchoscopy with BAL cannot be recommended for the routine management of preschool children with CF on the basis of overall cost savings.
Subject(s)
Bronchoalveolar Lavage/economics , Cystic Fibrosis/economics , Cystic Fibrosis/therapy , Child, Preschool , Costs and Cost Analysis , Humans , Infant , Patient Admission/economics , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that desmopressin facilitates acquisition of continence, we aimed to establish whether, in children with nocturnal enuresis who are desmopressin nonresponders, adjunct desmopressin increases the rate of sustained continence after treatment with a conditioning alarm. Study design Patients with nocturnal enuresis (n=358; age range, 6-16 years) completed a 4-week "run-in" course of intranasal desmopressin (20-40 microg). Of these, 207 defined as nonresponders (<50% reduction in wet nights) were randomly assigned to receive either desmopressin (n=101) or placebo (n=106) nasal spray, together with conditioning alarm therapy for 8 weeks. Principal outcome measures were remission (28 continuous dry nights) and relapse (>2 wet nights in 2 weeks after having achieved remission). RESULTS: Remission rates were similar in both groups (51.5% desmopressin, 48.1% placebo; 95% CI on difference, -10%, 17%; P=.63), and relapse rates were not significantly different (13.5% vs 5.9%; 95% CI on difference, -3.7%, 19%; P=.19). Although remission rates were similar, children treated with desmopressin had significantly more dry nights during treatment than those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Desmopressin did not act synergistically with alarm treatment to achieve remission. Therefore, we infer that in partial or nonresponders, desmopressin does not enhance learning.