A cost-utility analysis comparing endovascular coiling to neurosurgical clipping in the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage
Ahmed A, Ahmed Y, Duah-Asante K, Lawal A, Mohiaddin Z, Nawab H, Tang A, Wang B, Miller G, Malawana J
Neurosurgical review. 2022
Endovascular coiling (EC) has been identified in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to produce more favourable clinical outcomes in comparison to neurosurgical clipping (NC) when surgically treating a subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured aneurysm. Cost-effectiveness analyses between both interventions have been done, but no cost-utility analysis has yet been published. This systematic review aims to perform an economic analysis of the relative utility outcomes and costs from both treatments in the UK. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS), over a 1-year analytic horizon. Outcomes were obtained from the randomised International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) and measured in terms of the patient's modified Rankin scale (mRS) grade, a 6-point disability scale that aims to quantify a patient's functional outcome following a stroke. The mRS score was weighted against the Euro-QoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), with each state assigned a weighted utility value which was then converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis using different utility dimensions was performed to identify any variation in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) if different input variables were used. Costs were measured in pounds sterling (£) and discounted by 3.5% to 2020/2021 prices. The cost-utility analysis showed an ICER of - £144,004 incurred for every QALY gained when EC was utilised over NC. At NICE's upper willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000, EC offered a monetary net benefit (MNB) of £7934.63 and health net benefit (HNB) of 0.264 higher than NC. At NICE's lower WTP threshold of £20,000, EC offered an MNB of £7478.63 and HNB of 0.374 higher than NC. EC was found to be more 'cost-effective' than NC, with an ICER in the bottom right quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane-indicating that it offers greater benefits at lower costs. This is supported by the ICER being below the NICE's threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY, and both MNB and HNB having positive values (> 0).
Intranasal desmopressin versus blood transfusion in cirrhotic patients with coagulopathy undergoing dental extraction: a randomized controlled trial
Stanca CM, Montazem AH, Lawal A, Zhang JX, Schiano TD
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2010;68((1):):138-43.
PURPOSE Cirrhotic patients waiting for liver transplantation who need dental extractions are given fresh frozen plasma and/or platelets to correct coagulopathy. This is costly and may be associated with transfusion reactions and fluid overload. We evaluated the efficacy of intranasal desmopressin as an alternative to transfusion to correct the coagulopathy of cirrhotic patients undergoing dental extraction. PATIENTS AND METHODS Cirrhotic patients with platelet counts of 30,000 to 50,000/microL and/or international normalized ratio (INR) 2. 0 to 3. 0 were enrolled in a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Blood transfusion (fresh frozen plasma 10 mL/kg and/or 1 unit of single donor platelets, respectively) or intranasal desmopressin (300 microg) were given before dental extraction. A standard oral and maxillofacial surgical treatment protocol was performed by the same surgeon. Patients were followed for postextraction bleeding and side-effects over the next 24 to 48 hours. RESULTS No significant differences were noted between the 2 groups in gender, age, INR, platelet count, creatinine, total bilirubin, ALT, albumin, MELD score, or number of teeth removed (median 3 vs 4). The number of teeth removed ranged between 1 and 31 in the desmopressin group and 1 and 22 in the transfusion group. No patients in desmopressin group required rescue blood transfusion after extraction. One patient in the transfusion group had bleeding after the procedure and required an additional transfusion. Another patient experienced an allergic reaction at the end of transfusion, which was effectively treated with diphenhydramine. Treatment associated average costs were lower for desmopressin ($700/patient) compared with transfusion ($1,173/patient). CONCLUSIONS Intranasal desmopressin was as effective as blood transfusion in achieving hemostasis in cirrhotic patients with moderate coagulopathy undergoing dental extraction. Intranasal desmopressin was much more convenient, less expensive, and well tolerated.