BackgroundThere are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma.MethodsWe obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010–11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011–12; 2011–12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling.ResultsThe prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7–31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3–16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9–10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7–5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths.ConclusionsAsthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0657-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 appear to be an appropriate assessment system for CP, with the addition of items to cover guilt about alcohol consumption, and the burden of abstention. Patients' QoL is adversely affected by the fear of future health problems, difficulty sleeping, and fatigue.

No abstract

Reapplix ApS.

Background

How to obtain copies of this and other HTA programme reports An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address.Paying by credit card You can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume.How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTAThe clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of management strategies for sciatica: systematic review and economic model NIHR Health Technology Assessment programmeThe Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care. The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' . The HTA pro...

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...

Background Ulcers of the foot in people with diabetes mellitus are slow to heal and result in considerable cost and patient suffering. The prognosis is worst for ulcers of the heel. Objective To assess both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of lightweight fibreglass casts in the management of heel ulcers. Design A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, observer-blinded randomised controlled trial. A central randomisation centre used a computer-generated random number sequence to allocate participants to groups. Setting Thirty-five specialist diabetic foot secondary care centres in the UK. Those recruited were aged ≥ 18 years and had diabetes mellitus complicated by ulcers of the heel of grades 2–4 on the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel scale. Participants In total, 509 participants [68% male, 15% with type 1 diabetes mellitus, mean age 67.5 years (standard deviation 12.4 years)] were randomised 1 : 1 to the intervention (n = 256) or the control (n = 253) arm. The primary outcome data were available for 425 participants (212 from the intervention arm and 213 from the control arm) and exceeded the total required; attrition was 16.5%. The median ulcer area at baseline was 275 mm2 [interquartile range (IQR) 104–683 mm2] in the intervention group and 206 mm2 (IQR 77–649 mm2) in the control group. There were no differences between the two groups at baseline in any parameter, neither in relation to the participant nor in relation to their ulcer. Interventions The intervention group received usual care supplemented by the addition of an individually moulded, lightweight, fibreglass heel cast. The control group received usual care alone. The intervention phase continued either until the participant’s ulcer had healed (maintained for 28 days) or for 24 weeks, whichever occurred first. During this intervention phase, the participants were reviewed every 2 weeks, and the fibreglass casts were replaced when they were no longer usable. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was ulcer healing (confirmed by a blinded observer and maintained for 4 weeks) within 24 weeks. Other outcome measures included the time taken for the ulcer to heal, the percentage reduction in the cross-sectional area, the reduction in local pain, amputation, survival and health economic analysis. The study was powered to define a difference in healing of 15% (55% intervention vs. 40% control). Results Forty-four per cent (n = 94) of the intervention group healed within 24 weeks, compared with 37% (n = 80) of the control participants (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.14; p = 0.088), using an intention-to-treat analysis. No differences were observed between the two groups for any secondary outcome. Limitations Although the component items of care were standardised, because this was a pragmatic trial, usual care was not uniform. There was some evidence of a small excess of adverse events in the intervention group; however, non-blinded observers documented these events. There was no excess of adverse device effects. Conclusions There may be a small increase in healing with the use of a heel cast, but the estimate was not sufficiently precise to provide strong evidence of an effect. There was no evidence of any subgroup in which the intervention appeared to be particularly effective. A health economic analysis suggested that it is unlikely that the intervention represents good value for money. The provision of a lightweight heel cast may be of benefit to some individuals, but we have found no evidence to justify the routine adoption of this in clinical practice. Future work It is unlikely that further study of this intervention will have an impact on usual clinical care, and so future efforts should be directed towards other interventions designed to improve the healing of ulcers in this population. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62524796. 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. 21, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.