| 1. |
- Hedlund, Pe rOlov, et al.
(författare)
-
Significance of pretreatment cardiovascular morbidity as a risk factor during treatment with parenteral oestrogen or combined androgen deprivation of 915 patients with metastasized prostate cancer: Evaluation of cardiovascular events in a randomized trial
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. - London : Informa Healthcare. - 0036-5599 .- 1651-2065. ; 45:5, s. 346-353
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective. This study aimed to evaluate prognostic risk factors for cardiovascular events during treatment of metastatic prostate cancer patients with high-dose parenteral polyoestradiol phosphate (PEP, Estradurin (R)) or combined androgen deprivation (CAD) with special emphasis on pretreatment cardiovascular disease. Material and methods. Nine-hundred and fifteen patients with T0-4, Nx, M1, G1-3, hormone- naive prostate cancer were randomized to treatment with PEP 240 mg i.m. twice a month for 2 months and thereafter monthly, or to flutamide (Eulexin (R)) 250 mg per os three times daily in combination with either triptorelin (Decapeptyl (R)) 3.75 mg i.m. per month or on an optional basis with bilateral orchidectomy. Pretreatment cardiovascular morbidity was recorded and cardiovascular events during treatment were assessed by an experienced cardiologist. A multivariate analysis was done using logistic regression. Results. There was a significant increase in cardiovascular events during treatment with PEP in patients with previous ischaemic heart disease (p = 0.008), ischaemic cerebral disease (p = 0.002), intermittent claudication (p = 0.031) and especially when the whole group of patients with pretreatment cardiovascular diseases was analysed together (p andlt; 0.001). In this group 33% of the patients had a cardiovascular event during PEP treatment. In the multivariate analysis PEP stood out as the most important risk factor for cardiac complications (p = 0.029). Even in the CAD group there was a significant increase in cardiovascular events in the group with all previous cardiovascular diseases taken together (p = 0.036). Conclusions. Patients with previous cardiovascular disease are at considerable risk of cardiovascular events during treatment with high-dose PEP and even during CAD therapy. Patients without pretreatment cardiovascular morbidity have a moderate cardiovascular risk during PEP treatment and could be considered for this treatment if the advantages of this therapy, e. g. avoidance of osteopenia and hot flushes and the low price, are given priority.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fritzell, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish lumbar spine study : A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Spine. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0362-2436 .- 1528-1159. ; 29:4, s. 421-434
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Study Design. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the societal and health care perspectives. Objective. To evaluate the costs-effectiveness of lumbar fusion for chronic low back pain (CLBP) during a 2-year follow-up. Summary of Background Data. A full economic evaluation comparing costs related to treatment effects in patients with CLBP is lacking. Patients and Methods. A total of 284 of 294 patients with CLBP for at least 2 years were randomized to either lumbar fusion or a nonsurgical control group. Costs for the health care sector ( direct costs), and costs associated with production losses ( indirect costs) were calculated. Societal total costs were identified as the sum of direct and indirect costs. Treatment effects were measured using patient global assessment of improvement, back pain ( VAS), functional disability (Owestry), and return to work. Results. The societal total cost per patient ( standard deviations) in the surgical group was significantly higher than in the nonsurgical group: Swedish kroner (SEK) 704,000 ( 254,000) vs. SEK 636,000 ( 208,000). The cost per patient for the health care sector was significantly higher for the surgical group, SEK 123,000 ( 60,100) vs. 65,200 ( 38,400) for the control group. All treatment effects were significantly better after surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ( ICER), illustrating the extra cost per extra effect unit gained by using fusion instead of nonsurgical treatment, were for improvement: SEK 2,600 ( 600 - 5,900), for back pain: SEK 5,200 ( 1,100 - 11,500), for Oswestry: SEK 11,300 ( 1,200 - 48,000), and for return to work: SEK 4,100 ( 100 21,400). Conclusion. For both the society and the health care sectors, the 2-year costs for lumbar fusion was significantly higher compared with nonsurgical treatment but all treatment effects were significantly in favor of surgery. The probability of lumbar fusion being cost-effective increased with the value put on extra effect units gained by using surgery.
|
|
