PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Ovarian Conservation at the Time of Hysterectomy and Long-Term Health Outcomes in the Nurses’ Health Study 
Obstetrics and gynecology  2009;113(5):1027-1037.
Objective
To report long-term health outcomes and mortality after oophorectomy or ovarian conservation.
Methods
We conducted a prospective, observational study of 29,380 women participants of the Nurses’ Health Study who had a hysterectomy for benign disease; 16,345 (55.6%) had hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy and 13,035 (44.4%) had hysterectomy with ovarian conservation. We evaluated incident events or death due to coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, total cancers, hip fracture, pulmonary embolus, and death from all causes.
Results
Over 24 years of follow-up, for women with hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy, compared with ovarian conservation, the multivariable hazard ratios (HR) were 1.12 (95% CI 1.03, 1.21) for total mortality, 1.17 (95% CI 1.02, 1.35) for fatal plus nonfatal CHD, and 1.14 (95% CI 0.98, 1.33) for stroke. Although the risks of breast (HR 0.75 95% CI 0.68, 0.84), ovarian (HR 0.04 95% CI 0.01, 0.09, NNT = 220), and total cancers (HR 0.92 95% CI 0.86, 0.98) decreased after oophorectomy, lung cancer incidence (HR =1.26, 95% CI 1.02, 1.56, NNH = 190) and total cancer mortality (HR=1.17, 95% CI 1.04, 1.32) increased. For never-users of estrogen therapy, bilateral oophorectomy before age 50 was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, CHD, and stroke. With an approximate 35-year life span following surgery, one additional death would be expected for every 9 oophorectomies performed.
Conclusions
Compared with ovarian conservation, bilateral oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy for benign disease is associated with a decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but an increased risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease, and lung cancer. In no analysis or age-group was oophorectomy associated with increased survival.
doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a11c64
PMCID: PMC3791619  PMID: 19384117
2.  Cost-effectiveness of the once-daily efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir tablet compared with the once-daily elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir tablet as first-line antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in the US 
Background
February 2013 US treatment guidelines recommend the once-daily tablet of efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (Atripla®) as a preferred regimen and the once-daily tablet of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir (Stribild™) as an alternative regimen for first-line treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study assessed the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using Atripla compared with Stribild as first-line antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected US adults.
Methods
A Markov cohort model was developed to project lifetime health-related outcomes, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of Stribild compared with Atripla as first-line antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected US patients. Patients progressed in 12-week cycles through second-line, third-line, and nonsuppressive therapies, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and death. Baseline characteristics and first-line virologic suppression, change in CD4 count, and adverse effects (lipid, central nervous system, rash, renal) were based on 48-week clinical trial results. These results demonstrated equivalent virologic suppression between the two regimens. Point estimates for virologic suppression (favoring Stribild) were used in the base case, and equivalency was used in the scenario analysis. Published sources and expert opinion were used to estimate costs, utilities, risk of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, mortality, subsequent-line CD4 count, clinical efficacy, and adverse events. Costs were reported in 2012 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of results.
Results
Compared with patients initiating Atripla, patients initiating Stribild were estimated to have higher lifetime costs. Stribild added 0.041 QALYs over a lifetime at an additional cost of $6,886, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $166,287/QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to first-line response rates, product costs, and likelihood of renal adverse events. When equivalent efficacy was assumed, Atripla dominated Stribild with lower costs and greater QALYs.
Conclusion
At a societal willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, Stribild was not cost-effective in the base case compared with Atripla for first-line HIV treatment.
doi:10.2147/CEOR.S47486
PMCID: PMC3770712  PMID: 24039438
human immunodeficiency virus; cost-effectiveness; antiretroviral therapy
3.  Physician Survey of the Effect of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay Results on Treatment Recommendations for Patients With Lymph Node–Positive, Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer 
Journal of Oncology Practice  2011;7(2):94-99.
This physician survey looks at the effect of the 21-gene recurrence score assay results on adjuvant treatment recommendations for patients with lymph node–positive, estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer.
Purpose:
To survey the effect of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay results on adjuvant treatment recommendations for patients with lymph node–positive (N+), estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer.
Methods:
Medical oncologists who ordered the 21-gene RS assay were invited to complete a survey regarding their most recent patient with N+/ER+ breast cancer. We obtained responses from 160 (16%) of the 1,017 medical oncologists.
Results:
Most of the respondents were in community (71%) versus academic (25%) settings and had practiced for a median of 11 years. T1, T2, or T3 disease was reported in 62%, 35%, and 3% of patients, respectively. One, two, three, or ≥ 4 nodes were reported in 69%, 18%, 6%, and 3% of patients, respectively. Eighty-six percent of the oncologists made treatment recommendations before obtaining the RS; 51% changed their recommendations after receiving the RS. In 33%, treatment intensity decreased from chemotherapy plus hormonal therapy to hormonal therapy alone. In 9%, treatment intensity increased from hormonal therapy alone to chemotherapy plus hormonal therapy. In 8%, treatment recommendations changed in a way that did not fit the definition of either increased or decreased intensity.
Conclusion:
In this survey of physician practice, the RS result was used to guide adjuvant treatment decision making in N+/ER+ breast cancer more often in patients with tumors less than 5 cm in size and one to three positive lymph nodes than in patients with larger tumors and four or more positive nodes and yielded an overall reduction in recommendations for chemotherapy.
doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000046
PMCID: PMC3051869  PMID: 21731516
4.  Impact of Alvimopan (Entereg) on Hospital Costs After Bowel Resection 
Pharmacy and Therapeutics  2011;36(4):209-220.
Purpose:
Delayed gastrointestinal (GI) recovery after bowel resection is associated with longer hospital stays and increased health care costs. Alvimopan (Entereg), a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, accelerates GI recovery after bowel-resection surgery. We undertook a study to evaluate the economic impact of alvimopan in clinical practice.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study using data from a large national hospital database and identified adults who had undergone small-bowel or large-bowel resection with primary anastomosis. The patients were discharged between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2009. The surgery was performed at a hospital where alvimopan was used at least once during the study period. We matched each alvimopan patient (“user”) with two controls (“non-users”). The primary outcome of total hospital costs (including the cost of alvimopan) and secondary outcomes of cost components and length of stay were compared between groups.
Results:
The final study cohort included 480 alvimopan patients and 960 matched controls. The mean total hospital cost was $12,865 for alvimopan patients, compared with $13,905 for controls, for a difference of $1,040 (P = 0.033). There was a non-significant trend toward lower ileus-related costs between groups ($83 for alvimopan vs. $114 for controls, P = 0.086). Pharmacy and diagnostic radiology costs did not differ significantly. The mean length of stay was 5.6 days for alvimopan patients and 6.5 days for controls (P < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Patients receiving alvimopan capsules had significantly lower total hospital costs compared with controls. Along with other initiatives to improve quality and reduce costs of surgical care, alvimopan might be a good choice for use in the perioperative management of patients who undergo segmental bowel resection with primary anastomosis.
PMCID: PMC3086114  PMID: 21572777
alvimopan; bowel resection; hospital cost; postoperative ileus; length of stay

Results 1-5 (5)