The Global Burden of Disease Study: a useful projection of future global health?
(65/1559)
One major conclusion of the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBDS) is that the global burden of disease will not change significantly from 1990 to 2020, in developed regions, developing regions or as a whole. Using the disability-adjusted life year (DALY), the Study estimates the burden as a result of 107 diseases, accidents and their disabling sequelae, disaggregated with respect to cause, sex, age and geographical region. The basic data used to construct estimates are sparse, and the DALY as a tool has received many criticisms. It obscures the distribution of disease and its impact in terms of handicap, and includes several social and economic value judgements. This weakens its power as a guide for the rational allocation of health resources at any point in time. Does it have use in guiding future planning and preventive action? At a global level, exceeding ecological capacity primarily through relative overpopulation is likely to be the greatest threat to overall health, yet overpopulation is not considered as a risk factor in itself. This reflects the understanding of health as an issue of the individual rather than the community. Together with the productivity-orientated weighting of DALYs, the Study appears to be more concerned with cost-effectiveness of health interventions rather than their equity. This underlies the reservations of the World Health Organization regarding the Study's use as a rational tool in health policy. (+info)
Simulated effect of tobacco tax variation on population health in California.
(66/1559)
OBJECTIVES: This study simulated the effects of tobacco excise tax increases on population health. METHODS: Five simulations were used to estimate health outcomes associated with tobacco tax policies: (1) the effects of price on smoking prevalence; (2) the effects of tobacco use on years of potential life lost; (3) the effect of tobacco use on quality of life (morbidity); (4) the integration of prevalence, mortality, and morbidity into a model of quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and (5) the development of confidence intervals around these estimates. Effects were estimated for 1 year after the tax's initiation and 75 years into the future. RESULTS: In California, a $0.50 tax increase and price elasticity of -0.40 would result in about 8389 QALYs (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4629, 12,113) saved the first year. Greater benefits would accrue each year until a steady state was reached after 75 years, when 52,136 QALYs (95% CI = 38,297, 66,262) would accrue each year. Higher taxes would produce even greater health benefits. CONCLUSIONS: A tobacco excise tax may be among a few policy options that will enhance a population's health status while making revenues available to government. (+info)
Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population.
(67/1559)
AIM: To ascertain utility values associated with varying degrees of legal blindness. METHODS: A cross sectional study on three group of patients. There were: (1) 15 patients with complete absence of vision (no light perception) in at least one eye who were asked to assume a scenario of no light perception in the second eye as well, (2) 17 patients with light perception to counting fingers in the better seeing eye, and (3) 33 patients with 20/200-20/400 vision in the better seeing eye. Utility values were measured using the time trade-off and standard gamble methods in each of the three groups. RESULTS: The mean time trade-off utility value for the no light perception group with the theoretical scenario of bilateral absence of light perception was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.19-0.33). The mean utility value for the light perception to counting fingers group was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.33-0.61), and the mean utility value for the 20/200-20/400 group was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.72). Thus, patients with no light perception in one eye, who were presented with the same scenario in the second eye as well, were willing to trade almost 3 out of every 4 years of remaining life in return for perfect vision in each eye. Those with light perception to counting fingers would trade approximately 1 of 2 remaining years and those with 20/200-20/400 would trade approximately 1 of 3 remaining years. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of utility values associated with legal blindness. The utility value decreases dramatically with perceived total loss of vision (absence of light perception in each eye), compared with counting fingers to light perception vision, indicating that the preservation of even small amounts of vision in patients with legal blindness is critically important to their wellbeing and functioning in life. (+info)
Preevaluation of clinical trial data: the case of preemptive cytomegalovirus therapy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus.
(68/1559)
We developed a mathematical simulation model to anticipate outcomes from an upcoming trial of targeted, preemptive cytomegalovirus (CMV) therapy in high-risk, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients identified by means of CMV polymerase chain reaction screening. We estimated the costs and consequences of CMV prophylaxis in patients with CD4(+) counts < or =100 cells/microL under various assumptions regarding disease progression, complication rates, drug effects, and costs. Without CMV preemptive therapy, lifetime costs average $44,600 with expected duration of survival of 19.16 quality-adjusted life-months and 213 CMV cases per 1000 patients. Targeted preemptive therapy with orally administered valganciclovir increases costs and duration of survival to $46,900 and 19.63 quality-adjusted life-months, respectively. CMV cases decrease to 174 per 1000 patients. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained is $59,000. This result compares favorably with other strategies in end-stage HIV disease but hinges on valganciclovir cost and efficacy assumptions and the absence of minimally effective salvage antiretroviral therapy for HIV. The upcoming trial should resolve the clinical uncertainty surrounding some of these assumptions. (+info)
Antibiotic prophylaxis for haematogenous bacterial arthritis in patients with joint disease: a cost effectiveness analysis.
(69/1559)
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for haematogenous bacterial arthritis in patients with joint disease. METHODS: In a decision analysis, data from a prospective study on bacterial arthritis in 4907 patients with joint disease were combined with literature data to assess risks and benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness calculations were performed on antibiotic prophylaxis for various patient groups. Grouping was based on (a) type of event leading to transient bacteraemia-that is, infections (dermal, respiratory/urinary tract) and invasive medical procedures-and (b) the patient's susceptibility to bacterial arthritis which was increased in the presence of rheumatoid arthritis, large joint prostheses, comorbidity, and old age. RESULTS: Of the patients with joint disease, 59% had no characteristics that increased susceptibility to bacterial arthritis, and 31% had one. For dermal infections, the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis was maximally 35 quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and the cost effectiveness maximally $52 000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY). For other infections, the effectiveness of prophylaxis was lower and the cost effectiveness higher. Prophylaxis for invasive medical procedures seemed to be acceptable only in patients with high susceptibility: 1 QALD at a cost of $1300/QALY; however, the results were influenced substantially when the level of efficacy of the prophylaxis or cost of prophylactic antibiotics was changed. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis seems to be indicated only for dermal infections, and for infections of the urinary and respiratory tract in patients with increased susceptibility to bacterial arthritis. Prophylaxis for invasive medical procedures, such as dental treatment, may only be indicated for patients with joint disease who are highly susceptible. (+info)
The cost effectiveness of combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV disease.
(70/1559)
BACKGROUND: Combination antiretroviral therapy with a combination of three or more drugs has become the standard of care for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States. We estimated the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of three-drug antiretroviral regimens. METHODS: We developed a mathematical simulation model of HIV disease, using the CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level as predictors of the progression of disease. Outcome measures included life expectancy, life expectancy adjusted for the quality of life, lifetime direct medical costs, and cost effectiveness in dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. Clinical data were derived from major clinical trials, including the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study. Data on costs were based on the national AIDS Cost and Services Utilization Survey, with drug costs obtained from the Red Book. RESULTS: For patients similar to those in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study (mean CD4 cell count, 87 per cubic millimeter), life expectancy adjusted for the quality of life increased from 1.53 to 2.91 years, and per-person lifetime costs increased from $45,460 to $77,300 with three-drug therapy as compared with no therapy. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted year of life gained, as compared with no therapy, was $23,000. On the basis of additional data from other major studies, the cost-effectiveness ratio for three-drug therapy ranged from $13,000 to $23,000 per quality-adjusted year of life gained. The initial CD4 cell count and drug costs were the most important determinants of costs, clinical benefits, and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of HIV infection with a combination of three antiretroviral drugs is a cost-effective use of resources. (+info)
Health-related quality of life after stroke a comprehensive review.
(71/1559)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We performed a comprehensive review of all quality-of-life (QOL) estimates for stroke appearing in the peer-reviewed literature between 1985 and 2000. We examine variation in QOL weights and the rigor of methods used to assess QOL and discuss the implications for cost-utility assessment and resource allocation decisions. METHODS: Through a systematic search, we identified 67 articles that met our inclusion criteria. A team of trained researchers read each article and followed detailed guidelines to extract QOL weights and other parameters. This effort yielded 161 QOL estimates for stroke-related health states. All estimates were measured on a 0 to 1 scale, with 0 representing the worst outcome and 1 representing the best. RESULTS: QOL estimates range from -0.02 to 0.71 (n=67) for major stroke, from 0.12 to 0.81 (n=14) for moderate stroke, from 0.45 to 0.92 (n=38) for minor stroke, and from 0.29 to 0.903 (n=42) for general stroke. Although QOL should decrease with severity, there were many instances in which the QOL for major stroke as reported by one study exceeded the QOL for moderate stroke as reported by another. The same reversal was found for moderate and minor stroke, and it occurred even when both authors used similar assessment methods and subject populations. Authors of cost-utility and decision analyses rarely base their choice of QOL weights on their own primary data (19%). When obtaining weights from secondary sources, some authors (23%) chose QOL weights for a severity of stroke that did not match the severity for which they sought data. CONCLUSIONS: QOL estimates for stroke vary greatly and are not always estimated in sound fashion. This impedes the comparability and quality of the cost-effectiveness studies that use these QOL weights and hampers good resource allocation decisions. (+info)
General health status measures for people with cognitive impairment: learning disability and acquired brain injury.
(72/1559)
BACKGROUND: Currently there is a wide range of health status measures that aim to assess general health status in people with cognitive impairment. However, the validity and/or applicability to this patient group are largely unknown. This has implications for the assessment of treatment outcomes and rehabilitation, for prognostic purposes, for planning services, and for determining the benefits and adverse effects of health technologies targeted at these patient groups. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the general health status measures that have been validated in patients with cognitive impairment. (2) To assess the extent to which these measures have been validated. (3) To draw out the implications of the findings for the use of existing measures and for future primary research in this area. METHODS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies that assessed general health status in people with cognitive impairment due to acquired brain injury (traumatic brain injury, cerebro-vascular accident or multiple sclerosis (MS)) or learning disability (LD) were included in the review. Studies that used general health status instruments measuring only one general health dimension, and studies that only featured participants with cognitive impairment due to dementia were excluded. METHODS. SEARCH STRATEGY: A wide range of relevant databases were searched for studies on cognitive impairment, general health status measures, and validation of health status measures. A handsearch of general health status bibliographies was also conducted. Data were collected on the general health status measure used, the population characteristics, aims of the study, validity details, and conclusions. RESULTS: The review includes data from 71 studies, reported in 83 separate publications. In total 34 different general health status measures were described in the 83 publications, with the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) the most frequently used measures (20 and 19 studies, respectively). These studies included a total of 98 instrument validations, 52 of which definitely or probably included people with cognitive impairment. Six measures were extensively validated (quality scores ranged from 0.25 to 0.5, on a scale from 0 to 1) in studies in which more than 50% of the respondents were people with cognitive impairment. A further three measures were also validated in studies in which more than 50% of the respondents were people with cognitive impairment, but their level of validation was more limited (quality scores ranged from 0.1 to 0.2). Five measures were validated in studies in which 20-50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired, which may limit their relevance to participants with cognitive impairment (quality scores ranged from 0.1 to 0.6). The SF-36 was also validated in two studies in which 20-50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired and the quality score was 0.3. Finally, nine of the measures were only validated in studies in which less than 20% of the respondents were cognitively impaired. For these measures it was unclear whether the findings applied to people with cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Very few measures have been validated specifically for cognitively impaired respondents. Studies where at least 50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired generally showed poorer validity results compared with studies with fewer cognitively impaired persons, indicating that general health status measures designed for the general population are not automatically suitable for people with cognitive impairment. The few measures that were specifically developed for people with cognitive impairment also reported poor validity results. Therefore, there are no validated instruments available for use in cognitively impaired respondents; existing measures, specifically designed for use in these populations, should be used with caution. The most promising measure is the MS-Quality of Life Interview (MS-QLI) for MS patients. The MS-QLI was thoroughly validated in 300 MS patients and the results were good, except for the 'social function' subscale. However, only 20-50% of the respondents in this study had cognitive impairment. Most information on the validity of general health status measures was found in studies among people with LD. For these patients, six measures were found that have been validated in a populations where more than 50% of the respondents were cognitively impaired LD patients. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Existing general health status measures should be used with caution in individuals with cognitive impairments. (2) There is no evidence to indicate the most suitable general health status measure for use in economic evaluations of cognitive impairment. (3) There is little evidence to support the validity of proxy assessments in cognitively impaired populations. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED) (+info)