| 1. |
- Hansson, Stina, 1988-, et al.
(författare)
-
Posterior crossbite corrections in the early mixed dentition with quad helix or rapid maxillary expander : a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Orthodontics. - : Oxford University Press. - 0141-5387 .- 1460-2210. ; 46:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Unilateral posterior crossbite is a common malocclusion, and early treatment is recommended to enable normal growth. There are several possibilities regarding choice of appliances used for correcting this malocclusion; however, when treatment is financed by public funds the decision needs to be based not only on the effects but also on the effect in relation to the costs. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing quad helix (QH) and rapid maxillary expanders (RME; hyrax-type) in children in the early mixed dentition.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients were randomized to treatment with either QH or RME, at two different centres. Data were collected from the patient's medical records regarding success rate, number of visits, total treatment time, emergency visits, and so forth, together with answers from patient questionnaires concerning absence from school and use of analgesics. A cost-effectiveness analysis with both an intention-to-treat (ITT) and a per-protocol approach was performed, as well as a deterministic sensitivity analysis.RESULTS: The success rate, one year after the completion of the expansion, was equal between groups according to the ITT approach. From a healthcare perspective, the mean cost difference between RME and QH was €32.05 in favour of QH (P = 0.583; NS). From a societal perspective, the mean cost difference was €32.61 in favour of QH (P = 0.742; NS). The total appliance cost alone was higher in the RME group €202.67 resp. €155.58 in the QH group (P = 0.001). The probability of RME having a higher cost was 71% from a healthcare perspective and 62.7% from a societal perspective. The total treatment time was 97 days longer in the QH group. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, when using a higher valuation of the children's educational loss, the QH becomes €58 more costly than the RME. There was a statistically significant difference in chair time and visits between centres (P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: The difference in costs between RME and QH is not statistically significant, however, there is a slightly higher probability that RME is more expensive than QH with a mean cost of an additional €32 per patient from a healthcare perspective. Different work procedures at different centres indicate that logistics around the patient's treatment is a more important aspect than appliance used to decrease the number of visits and save chair time and thereby also costs.
|
|
| 2. |
- Svensson, Mikael, 1980, et al.
(författare)
-
Analyses of quality of life in cancer drug trials - a review of measurements and analytical choices in post-reimbursement studies
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMC Cancer. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2407. ; 24:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: For drugs reimbursed with limited evidence of patient benefits, confirmatory evidence of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) benefits is important. For QoL data to serve as valuable input to patients and decision-makers, it must be measured and analyzed using appropriate methods. We aimed to assess the measurement and analyses of post-reimbursement QoL data for cancer drugs introduced in Swedish healthcare with limited evidence at the time of reimbursement. Methods: We reviewed any published post-reimbursement trial data on QoL for cancer drugs reimbursed in Sweden between 2010 and 2020 with limited evidence of improvement in QoL and OS benefits at the time of reimbursement. We extracted information on the instruments used, frequency of measurement, extent of missing data, statistical approaches, and the use of pre-registration and study protocols. Results: Out of 22 drugs satisfying our inclusion criteria, we identified published QoL data for 12 drugs in 22 studies covering multiple cancer types. The most frequently used QoL instruments were EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3/5L. We identified three areas needing improvement in QoL measurement and analysis: (i) motivation for the frequency of measurements, (ii) handling of the substantial missing data problem, and (iii) inclusion and adherence to QoL analyses in clinical trial pre-registration and study protocols. Conclusions: Our review shows that the measurements and analysis of QoL data in our sample of cancer trials covering drugs initially reimbursed without any confirmed QoL or OS evidence have significant room for improvement. The increasing use of QoL assessments must be accompanied by a stricter adherence to best-practice guidelines to provide valuable input to patients and decision-makers.
|
|
| 3. |
- Johansson, Naimi, 1988-, et al.
(författare)
-
Place or patient as the driver of regional variation in healthcare spending – Discrepancies by category of care
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Social Science and Medicine. - : Elsevier. - 0277-9536 .- 1873-5347. ; 342
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We study how much regional variation in healthcare spending is driven by place- and patient-specific factors using a random sample of 53,620 regional migrants in Sweden. We find notable differences depending on the category of care, with place-specific factors having a significantly larger impact on specialized outpatient care compared to inpatient and pharmaceutical care. The place effect is estimated to 75% of variation in specialized outpatient care, but 26% or less in variations in inpatient care, and 5% in prescription drug spending. We also find that the empirical estimator has a substantial impact on the estimates of the place-specific effect. The results based on the traditional approach in the literature with two-way fixed effects and event-study models produce much larger estimates of the place-specific effect compared to results based on recently developed heterogeneity-robust models. For total healthcare spending, the traditional two-way fixed effects model estimates a place effect of 78%, while the heterogeneity-robust estimator finds a place effect around 10%. This finding indicates that previous results in this literature, all based on traditional two-way fixed-effects regressions, should be interpreted with care.
|
|
