Search results
Found 18107 matches for
We lead multidisciplinary applied research and training to rethink the way health care is delivered in general practice and across the community.
Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (cheers) statement
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013.
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. © 2013.
Study of progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twins (STOPPIT): Findings from a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis
Objectives: Preterm birth contributes to a range of healthcare problems amongst infants surmounting to sizeable healthcare costs. Twin pregnancies are at particular risk of preterm birth. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaginal progesterone gel for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized placebo controlled trial (the STOPPIT trial) of vaginal progesterone gel for the prevention of preterm birth in twin pregnancies. Five hundred women were recruited from nine maternity hospitals in the United Kingdom. The outcomes of the economic evaluation were presented in terms of net benefit statistics, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, generated using the nonparametric bootstrap method, and the expected value of perfect information. Results: Mean health service costs between the period of randomization and discharge for mother and infant were £28,031 in the progesterone group and £25,972 in the placebo group, generating a mean nonsignificant cost difference of £2,059 (bootstrap mean cost difference -£2,334; £95 percent confidence interval: 5,023, 9,142; p =.33). The probability of progesterone being cost-effective was 20 percent at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per preterm birth prevented. There is little economic justification for conducting further research into the use of vaginal progesterone gel in twin pregnancies for the prevention of preterm birth. Conclusions: Further studies of preventive interventions for preterm birth more generally are required given the scale of the clinical and economic burden of this condition. These studies should be sufficiently powered for economic endpoints and extend beyond hospital discharge. Copyright © 2010 Cambridge University Press.
Randomised controlled trial of exercise to prevent shoulder problems in women undergoing breast cancer treatment: Study protocol for the prevention of shoulder problems trial (UK PROSPER)
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. Musculoskeletal shoulder problems are common after breast cancer treatment. Early postoperative exercises targeting the upper limb may improve shoulder function. This protocol describes a National Institute for Health Research-funded randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an early supervised structured exercise programme compared with usual care, for women at high risk of developing shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery. Methods This pragmatic two-armed, multicentre RCT is underway within secondary care in the UK. PRevention Of Shoulder ProblEms tRial (PROSPER) aims to recruit 350 women from approximately 15 UK centres with follow-up at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Recruitment processes and intervention development were optimised through qualitative research during a 6-month internal pilot phase. Participants are randomised to the PROSPER intervention or best practice usual care only. The PROSPER intervention is delivered by physiotherapists and incorporates three main components: shoulder-specific exercises targeting range of movement and strength; general physical activity and behavioural strategies to encourage adherence and support exercise behaviour. The primary outcome is upper arm function assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months postrandomisation. Secondary outcomes include DASH subscales, acute and chronic pain, complications, health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use. We will interview a subsample of 20 participants to explore their experiences of the trial interventions. Discussion The PROSPER study is the first multicentre UK clinical trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of supported exercise in the prevention of shoulder problems in high-risk women undergoing breast cancer surgery. The findings will inform future clinical practice and provide valuable insight into the role of physiotherapy-supported exercise in breast cancer rehabilitation. Protocol version Version 2.1; dated 11 January 2017 Trial registration number ISRCTN35358984; Pre-results.
Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)-explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force
Background: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. Objective: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. Methods: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. Results: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/ TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). Conclusions: We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years. © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).
Rationing potentially inappropriate treatment in newborn intensive care in developed countries
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd In newborn intensive care, parents sometimes request treatment that professionals regard as ‘futile’ or ‘potentially inappropriate’. One reason not to provide potentially inappropriate treatment is because it would be excessively costly relative to its benefit. Some public health systems around the world assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments and selectively fund those treatments that fall within a set threshold. This article explores the application of such thresholds to questions in newborn intensive care: (i) when a newborn infant's chance of survival is too small; (ii) how long treatment should continue; (iii) when quality of life is too low; and (iv) when newborn infants are too premature for cost-effective intensive care. This analysis yields some potentially surprising conclusions. Newborn intensive care may be cost-effective even in the setting of very low probability of survival, very poor predicted quality of life, for protracted periods of time, or for the most premature of newborns.
The cost of preterm birth throughout childhood in England and Wales
BACKGROUND. Infants born preterm are at increased risk of adverse health and developmental outcomes. Mortality and morbidity after preterm birth impose a burden on finite public sector resources. This study considers the economic consequences of preterm birth from birth to adult life and compares the costs accruing to those born preterm with those born at term. METHODS. A decision-analytic model was constructed to estimate the costs to the public sector over the first 18 years after birth, stratified by week of gestational age at birth. Costs were discounted and reported in UK pounds at 2006 prices. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to examine uncertainty in the model parameters and generate confidence intervals surrounding the cost estimates. RESULTS.The model estimates the costs associated with a hypothetical cohort of 669 601 children and is based on live birth and preterm birth data from England and Wales in 2006. The total cost of preterm birth to the public sector was estimated to be £2.946 billion (US $4.567 billion), and an inverse relationship was identified between gestational age at birth and the average public sector cost per surviving child. The incremental cost per preterm child surviving to 18 years compared with a term survivor was estimated at £22 885 (US $35 471). The corresponding estimates for a very and extremely preterm child were substantially higher at £61 781 (US $95 760) and £94 740 (US $146 847), respectively. CONCLUSIONS. Despite concerns about ongoing costs after discharge from perinatal services, the largest contribution to the economic implications of preterm birth are hospital inpatient costs after birth, which are responsible for 92.0% of the incremental costs per preterm survivor. Copyright © 2009 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years. © 2013, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).
The economic costs of Group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease: Prospective cohort study of infants with GBS disease in England
The objective of this study was to estimate the economic costs over the first 2 years of life of Group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease occurring in infants less than 90 days of age. A cost analysis was conducted using a prospective cohort of children born between 2000 and 2003 in the Greater London, Oxford, Portsmouth and Bristol areas of England. Unit costs were applied to estimates of the health and social resource use made by 138 infants diagnosed with GBS disease and 305 non-GBS controls matched for birth weight and hospital stay and time of birth. The health and social care costs for infants exposed to GBS disease were analysed in a multiple linear regression model. The mean health and social care cost over the first 2 years of life was estimated at £11,968.9 for infants with GBS, compared to £6,260.7 for the non-GBS controls; a mean cost difference of £5,708.1 (bootstrap 95% CI £2,977.1, £8,391.2, P = 0.03). After adjusting for gestational age and other potential confounders in a multiple linear regression, mean societal costs was £6,144.7 higher among GBS cases than among non-GBS controls (P < 0.001). This study shows that the health and social care costs for infants with GBS disease is, on average, two-fold higher during the first 2 years of life than for infants without GBS disease. These data should be used to inform policy decisions regarding the cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment strategies for GBS disease during early childhood. © 2008 Springer-Verlag.
The long-term costs of preterm birth and low birth weight: Results of a systematic review
The high rates of morbidity and mortality arising from preterm birth and low birth weight impose an immense burden on the health, education and social services, and on families. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of the published and unpublished evidence regarding the long-term economic implications of preterm birth and low birth weight for various sectors of the economy and for individuals. The paper highlights the variable methodological quality of the bulk of long-term economic studies of preterm birth and low birth weight and suggests ways in which these methodological limitations can be overcome. The paper reveals that preterm birth and low birth weight can result in substantial costs to the health sector following the infant's initial discharge from hospital. It can also impose a substantial burden on special education and social services, on families and carers of the infants and on society generally. In addition to the costs identified by the literature, preterm birth and low birth weight can have other long-term consequences that require evaluation from an economic perspective. © 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd.
Economic issues in the follow-up of neonates
Children with conditions requiring neonatal intensive care impose a financial burden on health services, on families and carers, and on society generally. A systematic review of the literature identified 81 studies that conducted a primary research on the cost of services as a result of conditions requiring neonatal intensive care. The majority of studies estimated costs incurred during the initial hospital stay. Relatively few studies considered health service costs following discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit, cost to other sectors of the economy or costs to families and carers. It is important that these costs are considered most fully. (C) 2000 Hardcourt Publisher Ltd.
The CHESS trial: protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial of an education and self-management intervention for people with chronic headache
BackgroundProcess evaluation is increasingly common alongside complex randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This evaluation helps in understanding the mechanisms of impact and how the study processes were executed, and it includes any contextual factors which may have implications for the trial results and any future implementation. This process evaluation is for the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) RCT, which is evaluating an education and self-management group behavioural intervention for people with chronic headache. Chronic headache is defined as headaches which are present for 15 or more days per month. The most common types are chronic migraine and chronic tension type and medication overuse headaches.MethodsWe will use a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data will be taken from routine trial data which will help us to assess the reach of the study; i.e. did we reach those whom we expected and from where? Intervention attendance (dose received) and attrition and qualitative data will augment our understanding about reasons why people may not wish to take part in or failed to attend sessions. Interviews with intervention facilitators and trial participants will gain different perspectives on taking part in the trial.Fidelity will be assessed through listening to audio recordings for adherence to course content and competence of the facilitation of a sample of sessions.DiscussionOur process evaluation will allow us to gain insight into how the trial was delivered, the obstacles and enablers encountered and the possible reasons why the interventions may or may not be effective.Trial registrationISRCTN79708100. Registered on 16 December 2015.
Epidemiological trends and risk factors for tobacco, alcohol and drug use among adolescents in Scotland, 2002-13
<br/><strong>Background: </strong>This study estimates trends in prevalence, and patterns, of individual and multiple substance use between 2002 and 2013 amongst adolescents in Scotland.<br/><strong>Methods: </strong>The study uses data from 134 387 participants of the biennial national ‘Scottish Schools Adolescent Lifestyle and Substance Use Survey’ on smoking, alcohol and illicit drug use. Current regular use and current heavy use of smoking, alcohol, illicit drugs and multiple substances was measured. Time trends in the prevalence of each outcome were estimated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.<br/><strong>Results: </strong>Regular smoking, alcohol, illicit drug and multiple substance use declined significantly amongst adolescents in Scotland. However, multivariate analyses that focussed upon high-risk levels of these behaviours revealed an upward linear trend in heavy alcohol (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.07) and heavy illicit drug (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.08) use (P < 0.05). Non-white pupils were more likely to be involved in individual and multiple substance use than ethnically white British pupils. In comparison to pupils from the least deprived socioeconomic quintile, pupils from the most deprived quintile had increased odds of 1.41 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.97; P < 0.05) and 1.62 (95% CI: 1.14, 2.29; P < 0.05) of being regular and heavy multiple substance users, respectively.<br/><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Further effort is required to tackle heavy alcohol and heavy illicit drug use amongst adolescents in Scotland. Prevention strategies should be informed by the risk profiles of substance misusers and evidence around the clinical and cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions.
Health economic aspects of late preterm and early term birth
Despite an increasing body of knowledge on the adverse clinical sequelae associated with late preterm birth and early term birth, little is known about their economic consequences or the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at their prevention or alleviation of their effects. This review assesses the health economic evidence surrounding late preterm and early term birth. Evidence is gathered on hospital resource use associated with late preterm and early term birth, economic costs associated with late preterm and early term birth, and economic evaluations of prevention and treatment strategies. The article highlights the limited perspective and time horizon of most studies of economic costs in this area; the limited evidence surrounding health economic aspects of early term birth; the gaps in current knowledge; and it discusses directions for future research in this area, including the need for validated tools for measuring preference-based health-related quality-of-life outcomes in infants that will aid cost-effectiveness-based decision-making.
The impact of childhood pneumococcal vaccination on hospital admissions in England: a whole population observational study
<br/><strong>Background: </strong>Pneumococcal infections are major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. We use routine hospital admissions data and time-series modelling analysis to estimate the impact of the seven and thirteen valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV7 and PCV13) on hospital admissions due to pneumococcal disease in England.<br/><strong>Methods: </strong>Hospital admissions for pneumococcal meningitis, bacteraemia and pneumonia between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2015 were identified from the national Hospital Episode Statistics database for all age groups in England. We model the impact of pneumococcal vaccination using interrupted time series analysis. Hospital admissions prior to vaccine introduction were extrapolated to predict the expected number of admissions in the absence of pneumococcal vaccines. Admissions avoided over time were estimated by comparing the fitted interrupted time series and the expected model for no vaccination in a Bayesian framework.<br/><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there were 43,531 (95% credible interval (CrI): 36486–51,346) fewer hospital admissions due to bacteraemia, meningitis and pneumonia in England during the period from 2006 to 2015 than would have been expected if pneumococcal vaccines had not been implemented, with the majority of hospital admissions avoided due to pneumonia. Among young children reductions in meningitis were more common, while among adults reductions in pneumonia admissions were relatively more important, with no evidence for reduced bacteraemia and meningitis among older adults. We estimated that 981 (95% CrI: 391–2018), 749 (95% CrI: 295–1442) and 1464 (95% CrI: 793–2522) bacteraemia, meningitis and pneumonia related hospital admissions, respectively, were averted in children < 2 years of age.<br/><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Substantial reductions in hospital admissions for bacteraemia, meningitis and pneumonia in England were estimated after the introduction of childhood vaccination, with indirect effects being responsible for most of the hospital admissions avoided.
Systematic review of economic evaluations of exercise and physiotherapy for patients treated for breast cancer
PurposeTreatments for breast cancer can lead to chronic musculoskeletal problems. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions aimed at reducing the risk of physical symptoms and functional limitations due to breast cancer treatment.MethodsA systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions during and following treatment for breast cancer was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Cost-effectiveness evidence was summarised in a descriptive manner and studies were assessed using quality appraisal tools. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO.ResultsA total of 7783 articles were identified and seven were included in the final review. Five studies undertook trial-based economic evaluations, whereas two studies conducted economic evaluation based on decision models. One study was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), three undertook stand-alone cost-utility analyses (CUA) and three studies were combined CEAs and CUAs. Three studies reported favourable cost-effectiveness results for different exercise or physiotherapy interventions. In contrast, four studies found that exercise and physiotherapy interventions were not cost-effective on the basis of quality-adjusted life year outcomes.ConclusionsThe evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of breast cancer remains sparse with contrasting conclusions. Future research should particularly aim to broaden the evidence base by disentangling the contributing effects of frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise and physiotherapy interventions on cost-effectiveness outcomes.
Wide variation in severe neonatal morbidity among very preterm infants in European regions
<br/><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the variation in severe neonatal morbidity among very preterm (VPT) infants across European regions and whether morbidity rates are higher in regions with low compared with high mortality rates.<br/><strong>Design: </strong>Area-based cohort study of all births before 32 weeks of gestational age.<br/><strong>Setting: </strong>16 regions in 11 European countries in 2011/2012.<br/><strong>Patients: </strong>Survivors to discharge from neonatal care (n=6422).<br/><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Severe neonatal morbidity was defined as intraventricular haemorrhage grades III and IV, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, surgical necrotizing enterocolitis and retinopathy of prematurity grades >= 3. A secondary outcome included severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), data available in 14 regions. Common definitions for neonatal morbidities were established before data abstraction from medical records. Regional severe neonatal morbidity rates were correlated with regional in-hospital mortality rates for live births after adjustment on maternal and neonatal characteristics.<br/><strong>Results: </strong>10.6% of survivors had a severe neonatal morbidity without severe BPD (regional range 6.4%23.5%) and 13.8% including severe BPD (regional range 10.0%-23.5%). Adjusted inhospital mortality was 13.7% (regional range 8.4%-18.8%). Differences between regions remained significant after consideration of maternal and neonatal characteristics (P< 0.001) and severe neonatal morbidity rates were not correlated with mortality rates (P= 0.50).<br/><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Severe neonatal morbidity rates for VPT survivors varied widely across European regions and were independent of mortality rates.
Cost-effectiveness of community-based human immunodeficiency virus self-testing in Blantyre, Malawi
Background. Human immunodeficiency virus self-testing (HIVST) is effective, with scale-up underway in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed cost-effectiveness of adding HIVST to existing facility-based HIV testing and counseling (HTC) services. Both 2010 (initiate at CD4 < 350 cells/mu L) and 2015 (initiate all) World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for antiretroviral treatment (ART) were considered. Methods. A microsimulation model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness, from both health provider and societal perspectives, of an HIVST service implemented in a cluster-randomized trial (CRT; ISRCTN02004005) in Malawi. Costs and health outcomes were evaluated over a 20-year time horizon, using a discount rate of 3%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for parameter uncertainty. Results. From the health provider perspective and 20-year time horizon, facility HTC using 2010 WHO ART guidelines was the least costly ($ 294.71 per person; 95% credible interval [CrI], 270.79-318.45) and least effective (11.64 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] per person; 95% CrI, 11.43-11.86) strategy. Compared with this strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for facility HTC using 2015 WHO ART guidelines was $ 226.85 (95% CrI, 198.79-284.35) per QALY gained. The strategy of facility HTC plus HIVST, using 2010 WHO ART guidelines, was extendedly dominated. The ICER for facility HTC plus HIVST, using 2015 WHO ART guidelines, was $ 253.90 (95% CrI, 201.71-342.02) per QALY gained compared with facility HTC and using 2015 WHO ART guidelines. Conclusions. HIVST may be cost-effective in a Malawian population with high HIV prevalence. HIVST is suited to an early HIV diagnosis and treatment strategy.