Search

BackgroundInternet interventions with and without therapist support have been found to be effective treatment options for harmful alcohol users. Internet-based therapy (IT) leads to larger and longer-lasting positive effects than Internet-based self-help (IS), but it is also more costly to provide. ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost utility of Internet-based interventions for harmful use of alcohol through the assessment of the incremental cost effectiveness of IT compared with IS. MethodsThis study was performed in a substance abuse treatment center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We collected data over the years 2008–2009. A total of 136 participants were included, 70 (51%) were female, and mean age was 41.5 (SD 9.83) years. Reported alcohol consumption and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores indicated harmful drinking behavior at baseline. We collected self-reported outcome data prospectively at baseline and 6 months after randomization. Cost data were extracted from the treatment center’s cost records, and sex- and age-specific mean productivity cost data for the Netherlands. ResultsThe median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at €3683 per additional treatment responder and €14,710 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. At a willingness to pay €20,000 for 1 additional QALY, IT had a 60% likelihood of being more cost effective than IS. Sensitivity analyses attested to the robustness of the findings. ConclusionsIT offers better value for money than IS and might therefore be considered as a treatment option, either as first-line treatment in a matched-care approach or as a second-line treatment in the context of a stepped-care approach. Trial RegistrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR-TC1155; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1155 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6AqnV4eTU)

BackgroundMissing data is a common nuisance in eHealth research: it is hard to prevent and may invalidate research findings. ObjectiveIn this paper several statistical approaches to data “missingness” are discussed and tested in a simulation study. Basic approaches (complete case analysis, mean imputation, and last observation carried forward) and advanced methods (expectation maximization, regression imputation, and multiple imputation) are included in this analysis, and strengths and weaknesses are discussed. MethodsThe dataset used for the simulation was obtained from a prospective cohort study following participants in an online self-help program for problem drinkers. It contained 124 nonnormally distributed endpoints, that is, daily alcohol consumption counts of the study respondents. Missingness at random (MAR) was induced in a selected variable for 50% of the cases. Validity, reliability, and coverage of the estimates obtained using the different imputation methods were calculated by performing a bootstrapping simulation study. ResultsIn the performed simulation study, the use of multiple imputation techniques led to accurate results. Differences were found between the 4 tested multiple imputation programs: NORM, MICE, Amelia II, and SPSS MI. Among the tested approaches, Amelia II outperformed the others, led to the smallest deviation from the reference value (Cohen’s d = 0.06), and had the largest coverage percentage of the reference confidence interval (96%). ConclusionsThe use of multiple imputation improves the validity of the results when analyzing datasets with missing observations. Some of the often-used approaches (LOCF, complete cases analysis) did not perform well, and, hence, we recommend not using these. Accumulating support for the analysis of multiple imputed datasets is seen in more recent versions of some of the widely used statistical software programs making the use of multiple imputation more readily available to less mathematically inclined researchers.

Objective: The aim of this article was to study the influence of hospital of diagnosis on the probability of receiving curative treatment and its impact on survival among patients with esophageal cancer (EC)., Background: Although EC surgery is centralized in the Netherlands, the disease is often diagnosed in hospitals that do not perform this procedure., Methods: Patients with potentially curable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction tumors diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 who were potentially curable (cT1-3,X, any N, M0,X) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Multilevel logistic regression was performed to examine the probability to undergo curative treatment (resection with or without neoadjuvant treatment, definitive chemoradiotherapy, or local tumor excision) according to hospital of diagnosis. Effects of variation in probability of undergoing curative treatment among these hospitals on survival were investigated by Cox regression., Results: All 13,017 patients with potentially curable EC, diagnosed in 91 hospitals, were included. The proportion of patients receiving curative treatment ranged from 37% to 83% and from 45% to 86% in the periods 2005-2009 and 2010-2013, respectively, depending on hospital of diagnosis. After adjustment for patient- and hospital-related characteristics these proportions ranged from 41% to 77% and from 50% to 82%, respectively (both P < 0.001). Multivariable survival analyses showed that patients diagnosed in hospitals with a low probability of undergoing curative treatment had a worse overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.20; hazard ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.24)., Conclusions: The variation in probability of undergoing potentially curative treatment for EC between hospitals of diagnosis and its impact on survival indicates that treatment decision making in EC may be improved.

Objective: The aim of these studies was to examine the influence of hospital of diagnosis on the probability of receiving curative treatment and its impact on survival among oesophageal and gastric cancer., Design: Although oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery is centralised in the Netherlands, the disease is often diagnosed in hospitals that do not perform this procedure., Method: Patients with potentially curable oesophageal or gastric cancer tumours diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The probability to undergo curative treatment was examined for each hospital of diagnosis after adjustment for case-mix. Effects of variation in probability of undergoing curative treatment among these hospitals on survival were investigated Cox regression., Results: All 13,017 patients with potentially curable oesophageal and 5,620 patients with potentially curable gastric cancer, diagnosed in 91 hospitals, were included. After adjustment, the proportion of oesophageal cancer patients receiving curative treatment ranged from 50% to 82% and from 48% to 78% for patients with gastric cancer in 2010-2013, depending on hospital of diagnosis (both P < 0.001). Furthermore, patients diagnosed in hospitals with a low probability of undergoing curative treatment had a worse overall survival in the period 2010-2013 (oesophageal cancer hazard ratio (HR): 1,15; 95%-CI: 1,07-1,24; gastric cancer HR: 1,21; 95%-CI: 1,04-1,41)., Conclusion: The variation in probability of undergoing potentially curative treatment for oesophageal and gastric cancer between hospitals of diagnosis and its impact on survival indicates that treatment decision-making for these patients may be improved. Regional expert multidisciplinary team meetings in this field may improve the selection of patients for curative treatment.

Background: Resectable gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumors are treated either with an esophageal-cardia resection or with gastrectomy. The difference in outcome between these two treatment modalities is unknown; Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate population-based treatment strategies for patients with resectable adenocarcinomas of the GEJ and to compare the oncological outcomes., Methods: Patients with potentially resectable GEJ tumors diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 were selected from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Differences between patients were compared using the χ (2) test, and survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Overall multivariate survival was assessed using Cox regression analyses., Results: Patients treated with esophagectomy (n = 939) were significantly younger than patients treated with gastrectomy (n = 257; 64 vs. 66 years; p < 0.001), and no differences were noted regarding lymph node yield, lymph node ratio, and radicality. Patients treated with an esophagectomy or gastrectomy exhibited comparable overall 5-year survival rates (36 vs. 33 %, respectively; p = 0.250). Multivariate analysis showed that patients receiving perioperative treatment and gastrectomy exhibited similar overall survival rates compared with patients receiving perioperative treatment and esophagectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 1.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.3; p = 0.908]; however, patients receiving esophagectomy alone (HR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.3-1.8; p = 0.002) or gastrectomy alone (HR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.4-2.4; p < 0.001) exhibited a significantly worse overall survival., Conclusions: The chosen type of surgery (esophagectomy or gastrectomy) did not influence the overall survival in our cohort of patients with GEJ tumors. The administration of perioperative chemo(radio)therapy improved survival regardless of the surgical approach.

Background: Pneumonia is an important complication following esophagectomy; however, a wide range of pneumonia incidence is reported. The lack of one generally accepted definition prevents valid inter-study comparisons. We aimed to simplify and validate an existing scoring model to define pneumonia following esophagectomy., Patients and Methods: The Utrecht Pneumonia Score, comprising of pulmonary radiography findings, leucocyte count, and temperature, was simplified and internally validated using bootstrapping in the dataset (n = 185) in which it was developed. Subsequently, the intercept and (shrunk) coefficients of the developed multivariable logistic regression model were applied to an external dataset (n = 201) RESULTS: In the revised Uniform Pneumonia Score, points are assigned based on the temperature, the leucocyte, and the findings of pulmonary radiography. The model discrimination was excellent in the internal validation set and in the external validation set (C-statistics 0.93 and 0.91, respectively); furthermore, the model calibrated well in both cohorts., Conclusion: The revised Uniform Pneumonia Score (rUPS) can serve as a means to define post-esophagectomy pneumonia. Utilization of a uniform definition for pneumonia will improve inter-study comparability and improve the evaluations of new therapeutic strategies to reduce the pneumonia incidence.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation might increase anastomotic leakage and stenosis in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of radiation dose on the incidence of leakage and stenosis., Methods: Fifty-three patients with esophageal cancer received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (23 × 1.8 Gy) (combined with Paclitaxel and Carboplatin) followed by a transhiatal esophagectomy between 2009 and 2011. On planning CT, the future anastomotic region was determined and the mean radiation dose, V20, V25, V30, V35 and V40 were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine determinants of anastomotic leakage and stenosis., Results: Anastomotic leaks occurred in 13 of 53 patients (25.5%) and anastomotic stenosis occurred in 24 of 53 patients (45.3%). Median follow-up was 20 months. Logistic regression analysis showed that mean dose, V20-V40, age, co-morbidity, method of anastomosis, operating time and interval between last radiotherapy treatment and surgery were not predictors of anastomotic leakage and stenosis., Conclusions: A radiation dose of 23 × 1.8 Gy on the future anastomotic region has no influence on the occurrence of anastomotic leakage and stenosis in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by transhiatal esophagectomy.

Purpose: Hypothermia in patients undergoing major clean surgery results in higher incidence of perioperative complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the additional use of a thermal reflective blanket can prevent hypothermia in patients undergoing primary unilateral total hip or knee replacement surgery., Design: A randomized, single-blinded study design was used., Methods: A total of 58 patients were randomized, 29 received a thermal reflective blanket, and 29 did not. Outcome measures included core temperature, thermal comfort, and shivering., Findings: The mean of the lowest core temperature was below 36°C in both the groups (35.9±0.4°C vs 35.8±0.4°C); thermal comfort and shivering were not significantly different between the groups., Conclusions: A thermal reflective blanket did not prevent hypothermia in this group of patients., (Copyright © 2013 American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypothermia, a body temperature of <36°C, has been shown to increase cardiac mortality, the incidence of postoperative infections, and the length of hospitalization following general surgery. However, studies assessing the incidence of hypothermia during primary total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) have not previously been demonstrated. In this prospective observational study, incidence of hypothermia was measured among 672 patients (415 underwent THA and 257 TKA). The incidence of hypothermia for THA and TKA was 26.3 and 28.0%, respectively. In conclusion, over a quarter of patients in this study are exposed to hypothermia. This study highlights the requirement for interventions to prevent peri-operative hypothermia., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)