Search

Objectives: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of root canal treatment (RCT) compared with a tooth extraction in a general dental practice setting, with reference to cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) gained over 1 year. Material and Methods: This is a prospective controlled cohort study based on patients either starting RCT or undergoing extraction at one of six Public Dental Service clinics in the county of Västra Götaland, Sweden. From a total of 65 patients, 2 comparable groups were formed: 37 started RCT and 28 underwent extraction. A societal perspective was used for the cost calculations. QALYs were estimated, based on the EQ‐5D‐5L given to the patients at their first treatment appointment and then after 1, 6, and 12 months. Results: The total mean cost of RCT ($689.1) was higher than for extraction ($280.1). For those patients whose extracted tooth was replaced, the costs were even higher ($1245.5). There were no significant intergroup differences in QALYs, but a significant improvement in health state values in the tooth‐preserving group. Conclusions: In the short term, extraction was cost‐effective compared with preserving a tooth with RCT. However, the potential need for future replacement of the extracted tooth, by an implant, fixed prosthesis, or removable partial dentures, may change the calculation in favor of RCT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention. At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large. We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Direct cost for methods of prediction also named risk assessment in dentistry may be negligible compared with the cost of extensive constructions. On the other hand, as risk assessment is performed daily and for several patients in general dental practice, the costs may be considerable. The objective was to summarize evidence in studies of economic evaluation of prognostic prediction multivariable models and methods of caries and periodontitis and to identify knowledge gaps (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020149763). Material and methods: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database) and reference lists of included studies were searched. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers in parallel. Full‐text studies reporting resources used, costs and cost‐effectiveness of prediction models and methods were selected and critically appraised using a protocol based on items from the CHEERS checklist for economic evaluations and the CHARMS checklist for evaluation of prediction studies. Results: From 38 selected studies, six studies on prediction fulfilled the eligibility criteria, four on caries and two on periodontitis. As the economic evaluations differed in method and perspective among the studies, the results could not be generalized. Our systematic review revealed methodological shortcomings regarding the description of predictive models and methods, and particularly of the economic evaluation. Conclusions: The systematic review highlighted a paucity of economic evaluations regarding methods or multivariable models for prediction of caries and periodontitis. Our results indicate that what we currently practice using models and methods to predict caries and periodontitis lacks evidence regarding cost‐effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of caries preventive interventions. A systematic review was conducted, following the PRISMA Statement. Four electronic databases were searched (final search 16 March 2020). Studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were independently critically appraised, by two reviewers in parallel. Data from each included study were extracted and tabulated: the analysis used a narrative approach to present the results of the estimated cost-effectiveness. Twenty-six publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were of low or moderate risk of bias. Ten publications were economic evaluations, directly based on empirical studies, and the other 16 were modelling studies. Most of the studies concerned interventions for children and the most common were analyses of fluoride varnish and risk-based programs. Some of the studies showed both reduced cost and improved outcomes, but most studies reported that the improved outcome came with an additional cost. The results disclosed several cost-effectiveness evaluations of caries preventive interventions in the literature, but these target primarily children at high risk. There is a scarcity of studies specifically targeting adults and especially the elderly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and critically appraise published studies of treatment methods used in general practice to rehabilitate adult patients with single tooth loss or partial edentulism, with special emphasis on outcomes reported after at least 5 years of follow-up. Materials and Methods: Three databases were searched using specified indexing terms. Publications were included if the study design, research questions, and sample size satisfied pre-established criteria. Reference lists of relevant publications and systematic reviews were also searched. The quality of evidence was classified according to the GRADE system as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results: The search yielded 7,675 titles, of which 1,130 were read in full text. A final total of 15 publications were deemed eligible for inclusion: 5 of moderate quality and 10 of low quality. The five studies of moderate quality were all related to implant-based treatment. The 5-year survival rates for implant-supported single crowns and prostheses were 91% and 94.7%, respectively (implant survival rates: 98.5% and 94.9%, respectively). The underlying scientific evidence was low in quality. No relevant publications were identified regarding the economic aspects of treatment. Conclusion: Due to the low scientific evidence of the included studies, it was not possible to compare various treatment methods used for rehabilitation of single tooth loss or partial edentulism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To contribute with information on cost-effectiveness of pulp capping and root canal treatment of posterior permanent vital teeth in children and adolescents with pulp exposures due to caries.Material and Methods: Cost-effectiveness by means of a Markov simulation model was studied in a Scandinavian setting. In a simulated 12-year-old patient, treatment of pulpal exposure of a permanent tooth, either by the initial treatment pulp capping or root canal treatment, was followed for 9 years until the patient was 21. The model was based on outcome data obtained from published literature and cost data based on reference prices.Results: In the simulated case, with the annual failure probalility (AFP) of 0.034 for pulp capping, the total cost for an initial treatment with pulp capping and any anticipated following treatments during the 9 years, was 367 EUR lower than for a root canal treatment as the initial treatment. After an initial treatment with pulp capping 10.4% fewer teeth, compared with initial root canal treatment, were anticipated to be extracted. Pulp capping was thus considered to be the cost-effective alternative. The sensitivity analyses showed that the AFP of a tooth requiring a root canal treatment after an initial pulp capping needed to be 0.2 before root canal treatment may be considered being the cost-effective treatment.Conclusions: This model analysis indicated initial treatment by pulp capping to be cost-effective compared to root canal treatment in children and adolescents with pulp exposures due to caries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We have previously reported inconclusive results from a randomized controlled trial in elderly with hip-fracture comparing intra-operative goal-directed therapy with routine fluid treatment. Now we aimed to describe and compare secondary outcomes at 4 months and 1 year follow-up and to analyze the cost-effectiveness.Methods: Patients with hip fracture (age ≥70) were randomized for GDT or routine fluid treatment (RFT). The secondary outcomes were long-term survival, complications, number of hospital readmissions, and quality of life (EQ-5D) changes. Additionally, cost effectiveness was analyzed by an analytic tool which combines the clinical effectiveness, quality of life changes and costs.Results: Patient data (GDT n = 74; RFT n = 75) were analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Statistically significant differences (GDT vs RFT) were not found considering survival (RR 0.76, 95%CI 0.45-1.28) and complications (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.4-1.10) at 12 months. No statistically significant difference was found between hospital readmissions and quality of life changes.Conclusion: The statistical uncertainty of risk reduction of negative outcomes and the large variability of the collected data indicate the need of further research in large sample sizes. To enable future health economic evaluation for decision support surrounding implementation of GDT, we suggest adding patient-oriented outcomes in future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using individual-donor nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) in addition to serologic tests compared with the sole use of serologic tests for the identification of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among blood donors in Sweden. The two strategies analyzed were serologic tests and ID-NAT plus serologic tests. A health-economic model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and effects. The effects were measured as infections avoided and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. A societal perspective was used. The largest number of viral transmissions occurred with serologic testing only. However, the risks for viral transmissions were very low with both strategies. The total cost was mainly influenced by the cost of the test carried out. The cost of using ID-NAT plus serologic tests compared to serologic tests alone was estimated at Swedish Krona (SEK) 101 million (USD 12.7 million) per avoided viral transmission. The cost per QALY gained was SEK 22 million (USD 2.7 million). Using ID-NAT for testing against HBV, HCV, and HIV among blood donors leads to cost-effectiveness ratios that are far beyond what is usually considered cost-effective. The main reason for this is that with current methods, the risks for virus transmission are very low in Sweden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atrial Fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. It increases the risk of thromboembolic events and many atrial fibrillation patients suffer quality of life impairment due to disturbed heart rhythm. Pulmonary vein isolation using radiofrequency catheter ablation treatment is aimed at maintaining sinus rhythm ultimately improving quality of life. Randomized clinical trial have shown that catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, but its impact on quality of life and cost-effectiveness has not been widely studied. Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) vs. antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment, among symptomatic atrial fibrillation patients not previously responding to AAD. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to assess costs and health outcomes in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of RFA and AAD over a lifetime time horizon. We conducted a literature search and used data from several sources as input variables of the model. One-year rates of atrial fibrillation with RFA and AAD, respectively, were available from published randomized clinical trials. Other data sources were published papers and register data. Results: The RFA treatment strategy was associated with reduced costs and an incremental gain in QALYs compared to the AAD treatment strategy. The results were sensitive to whether long-term quality of life improvement is maintained for the RFA treatment strategy and the risk of stroke in the different atrial fibrillation health states. Conclusion: This study shows that the short-term improvement in atrial fibrillation associated with RFA is likely to lead to long-term quality of life improvement and lower costs indicating that RFA is cost-effective compared to AAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives. This randomised controlled trial was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led education and psychosocial support programme for patients with heart failure (HF) and their partners. Background. There are few studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of interventions among HF patient-partner dyads. Methods. Dyads randomised to the experimental group received nurse-led counselling, computer-based education and written materials aimed at developing problem-solving skills at two, six and 12 weeks after hospitalisation with HF exacerbation. The dyads in the control group received usual care. A cost-effectiveness analysis that included costs associated with staff time to deliver the intervention and travel costs was conducted at 12 months. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weights for patients and partners were estimated by SF-6D. Results. A total of 155 dyads were included. The intervention cost was €223 per patient. Participants in both groups showed improvements in QALY weights after 12 months. However, no significant difference in QALY weights was found between the patients in the two groups, nor among their partners. Conclusion. The intervention was not proven cost-effective, neither for patients nor for partners. The intervention, however, had trends (but not significant) effects on the patient-partner dyads, and by analysing the QALY gained from the dyad, a reasonable mean cost-effectiveness ratio was achieved. Relevance to clinical practice. The study shows trends of a cost-effective education and psychosocial care of HF patient-partner dyads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]