Objective To assess the overall cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme, based on findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and taking into account the uncertainty of associated estimates of benefits, harms, and costs.Design A life table model comparing data from two cohorts.Setting United Kingdom's health service.Participants and interventions 364 500 women aged 50 years-the population of 50 year old women in England and Wales who would be eligible for screening-were followed up for 35 years without screening, compared with a similar cohort who had regular mammographic screening between ages 50 and 70 years and were then followed for another 15 years. Main outcome measuresBetween the cohorts, we compared the number of breast cancer diagnoses, number of deaths from breast cancer, number of deaths from other causes, person years of survival adjusted for health quality, and person years of survival with breast cancer. We also calculated the costs of treating primary and end stage breast cancer, and the costs of screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored the effect of uncertainty in key input parameters on the model outputs.Results Under the base case scenario (using input parameters derived from the Independent Panel Review), there were 1521 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 2722 overdiagnosed breast cancers. Discounting future costs and benefits at a rate of 3.5% resulted in an additional 6907 person years of survival in the screened cohort, at a cost of 40 946 additional years of survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening was associated with 2040 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of £42.5m (€49.8m; $64.7m) in total or £20 800 per QALY gained. The gain in person time survival over 35 years was 9.2 days per person and 2.7 quality adjusted days per person screened.Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this incremental cost effectiveness ratio varied widely across a range of plausible scenarios. Screening was cost effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained in 2260 (45%) scenarios, but in 588 (12%) scenarios, screening was associated with a reduction in QALYs. ConclusionThe NHS breast screening programme is only moderately likely to be cost effective at a standard threshold. However, there is substantial uncertainty in the model parameter estimates, and further primary research will be needed for cost effectiveness studies to provide definitive data to inform policy. IntroductionThe United Kingdom's health service established a breast screening programme in 1988, following the publication of the Forrest Report in 1987.1 Since then, additional data from the randomised trials on which the report was based and results from other trials and observational studies have become available. The availability of additional data has fuelled a continuing debate about the relative harms and benefits of breast screening, and several reviews of the evidence have been published in the past 10 years by various s...
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost utility of a universally provided early years parenting programme.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.SettingEarly years centres in four deprived areas of South Wales.ParticipantsFamilies with children aged between 2 and 4 years. 286 families were recruited and randomly allocated to the intervention or waiting list control.InterventionThe Family Links Nurturing Programme (FLNP), a 10-week course with weekly 2 h facilitated group sessions.Main outcome measuresNegative and supportive parenting, child and parental well-being and costs assessed before the intervention, following the course (3 months) and at 9 months using standardised measures.ResultsThere were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes between trial arms at 3 or 9 months. With ‘+’ indicating improvement, difference in change in negative parenting score at 9 months was +0.90 (95%CI −1.90 to 3.69); in supportive parenting, +0.17 (95%CI −0.61 to 0.94); and 12 of the 17 secondary outcomes showed a non-significant positive effect in the FLNP arm. Based on changes in parental well-being (SF-12), the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be £34 913 (range 21 485–46 578) over 5 years and £18 954 (range 11 664–25 287) over 10 years. Probability of cost per QALY gained below £30 000 was 47% at 5 years and 57% at 10 years. Attendance was low: 34% of intervention families attended no sessions (n=48); only 47% completed the course (n=68). Also, 19% of control families attended a parenting programme before 9-month follow-up.ConclusionsOur trial has not found evidence of clinical or cost utility for the FLNP in a universal setting. However, low levels of exposure and contamination mean that uncertainty remains.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13919732.
Background Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. Objective To determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective. Design A multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation. Setting General practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis. Participants Adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours’ and 21 days’ duration. Intervention CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation. Main outcome measures Patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included. Results In total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI –0.33 to –0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI –£34.80 to £69.98; p = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD. Conclusions A CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy. Future work Implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Objectives: To examine trends in strong opioid prescribing in a primary care population in Wales and identify if factors such as age, deprivation and recorded diagnosis of depression or anxiety may have influenced any changes noted. Design: Trend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routine data from the Primary Care General Practice database and accessed via the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Setting: A total of 345 Primary Care practices in Wales. Participants: Anonymised records of 1,223,503 people aged 18 or over, receiving at least one opioid prescription between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2015 were analysed. People with a cancer diagnosis (10.1%) were excluded from the detailed analysis. Results: During the study period, 26,180,200 opioid prescriptions were issued to 1,223,503 individuals (55.9% female, 89.9% non-cancer diagnoses). The greatest increase in annual prescribing was in the 18–24 age group (10,470%), from 0.08 to 8.3 prescriptions/1000 population, although the 85+ age group had the highest prescribing rates across the study period (from 149.9 to 288.5 prescriptions/1000 population). The number of people with recorded diagnoses of depression or anxiety and prescribed strong opioids increased from 1.2 to 5.1 people/1000 population (328%). The increase was 366.9% in areas of highest deprivation compared to 310.3 in the least. Areas of greatest deprivation had more than twice the rate of strong opioid prescribing than the least deprived areas of Wales. Conclusion: The study highlights a large increase in strong opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain, in Wales between 2005 and 2015. Population groups of interest include the youngest and oldest adult age groups and people with depression or anxiety particularly if living in the most deprived communities. Based on this evidence, development of a Welsh national guidance on safe and rational prescribing of opioids in chronic pain would be advisable to prevent further escalation of these medicines. Summary points This is the first large-scale, observational study of opioid prescribing in Wales. Over 1 million individual, anonymised medical records have been searched in order to develop the study cohort, thus reducing recall bias. Diagnosis and intervention coding in the Primary Care General Practice database is limited at input and may lead to under-reporting of diagnoses. There are limitations to the data available through the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank because anonymously linked dispensing data (what people collect from the pharmacy) are not currently available. Consequently, the results presented here could be seen as an ‘intention to treat’ and may under- or overestimate what people in Wales actually consume.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.