FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Health economic impact of early versus delayed treatment of herpes simplex virus encephalitis in the UK

Por: Defres · S. · Navvuga · P. · Moore · S. · Hardwick · H. · Easton · A. · Michael · B. D. · Kneen · R. · Griffiths · M. · ENCEPHUK Study Group · Medina-Lara · A. · Solomon · T. · Barlow · Beeching · Blanchard · Body · Boyd · Cebria-Prejan · Chadwick · Cooke · Crawford · Davies · Davies
Objective

Thanks to the introduction of recent national guidelines for treating herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis, health outcomes have improved. This paper evaluates the health system costs and the health-related quality of life implications of these guidelines.

Design and setting

A sub-analysis of data from a prospective, multi-centre, observational cohort ENCEPH-UK study conducted across 29 hospitals in the UK from 2012 to 2015.

Study participants

Data for patients aged ≥16 years with a confirmed HSV encephalitis diagnosis admitted for treatment with aciclovir were collected at discharge, 3 and 12 months.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Patient health outcomes were measured by the Glasgow outcome score (GOS), modified ranking score (mRS) and the EuroQoL; healthcare costs were estimated per patient at discharge from hospital and at 12 months follow-up. In addition, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D utility scores. Cost–utility analysis was performed using the NHS and Social Care perspective.

Results

A total of 49 patients were included; 35 were treated within 48 hours, ‘early’ (median (IQR) 8.25 [3.7–20.5]) and 14 were treated after 48 hours ‘delayed’ (median (IQR) 93.9 [66.7–100.1]). At discharge, 30 (86%) in the early treatment group had a good mRS outcome score (0–3) compared with 4 (29%) in the delayed group. According to GOS, 10 (29%) had a good recovery in the early treatment group, but only 1 (7%) in the delayed group. EQ-5D-3L utility value at discharge was significantly higher for early treatment (0.609 vs 0.221, p

Conclusions

This study suggests that early treatment may be associated with better health outcomes and reduced patient healthcare costs, with a potential for savings to the NHS with faster treatment.

Implementation and effectiveness of a nurse-enabled, shared-care follow-up model for early breast cancer survivors (The IBIS-Survivorship Study): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Por: Chan · R. J. · Crawford-Williams · F. · Koczwara · B. · Mann · G. B. · Eakin · E. · Turner · J. · Krishnasamy · M. · Collins · L. G. · Skerman · H. · Hemming · K. · Hart · N. H. · Emery · J. · Crowe · B. · Patford · K. · Mahony · J. · Kristunas · C. · Blanchard · G. · Healey · L. · Sanmuga
Introduction

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide. Survivors often experience physical and psychological effects arising from breast cancer and its treatment, which can last months and years, adversely impacting quality of life. As the number of early breast cancer survivors increases, models of specialist-led follow-up care in hospital settings are not sustainable and evidence suggests that they may not meet survivors’ needs. Nurse-enabled, shared-care, follow-up models between cancer specialist and primary care teams have potential to address this need.

Methods and analysis

The proposed research is a multicentre, prospective, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial designed to test the effectiveness and implementation of IBIS-Survivorship, a follow-up care model for patients with early breast cancer who have completed primary treatment. The IBIS-Survivorship intervention involves a nurse-led consultation, development of a Survivorship Care Plan and case-conferencing between a breast care nurse and the patient’s primary care provider. This study seeks to recruit 1079 breast cancer survivors across six cancer centres (clusters) in Australia. Health-related quality of life at 12 months assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer questionnaire will be the primary endpoint, along with a range of patient-reported outcomes, safety indicators and cost-effectiveness measures as secondary endpoints. General and generalised linear mixed models will be used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention versus usual care. Implementation and process outcomes will be assessed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was provided by the Metro South Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/2020/QMS/59892) and reciprocally across the other five trial sites under National Mutual Acceptance arrangements. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed academic journal publications and presentations at national and international conferences.

Trial registration

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Trial ID: ACTRN12621000188831.

❌