BackgroundAspirin has been shown to lower the incidence and the mortality of vascular disease and cancer but its wider adoption appears to be seriously impeded by concerns about gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Unlike heart attacks, stroke and cancer, GI bleeding is an acute event, usually followed by complete recovery. We propose therefore that a more appropriate evaluation of the risk-benefit balance would be based on fatal adverse events, rather than on the incidence of bleeding. We therefore present a literature search and meta-analysis to ascertain fatal events attributable to low-dose aspirin.MethodsIn a systematic literature review we identified reports of randomised controlled trials of aspirin in which both total GI bleeding events and bleeds that led to death had been reported. Principal investigators of studies in which fatal events had not been adequately described were contacted via email and asked for further details. A meta-analyses was then performed to estimate the risk of fatal gastrointestinal bleeding attributable to low-dose aspirin.ResultsEleven randomised trials were identified in the literature search. In these the relative risk (RR) of ‘major’ incident GI bleeding in subjects who had been randomised to low-dose aspirin was 1.55 (95% CI 1.33, 1.83), and the risk of a bleed attributable to aspirin being fatal was 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.80). In all the subjects randomised to aspirin, compared with those randomised not to receive aspirin, there was no significant increase in the risk of a fatal bleed (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41, 1.43).ConclusionsThe majority of the adverse events caused by aspirin are GI bleeds, and there appears to be no valid evidence that the overall frequency of fatal GI bleeds is increased by aspirin. The substantive risk for prophylactic aspirin is therefore cerebral haemorrhage which can be fatal or severely disabling, with an estimated risk of one death and one disabling stroke for every 1,000 people taking aspirin for ten years. These adverse effects of aspirin should be weighed against the reductions in vascular disease and cancer.

The ADDQoL is reliable and probably valid for assessing QOL among Chinese-speaking Singaporeans with T2DM, although known-groups validity warrants further investigation.

A cochlear implant is a small electronic device that provides a sense of sound for the user, which can be used unilaterally or bilaterally. Although there is advocacy for the benefits of binaural hearing, the high cost of cochlear implant raises the question of whether its additional benefits over the use of an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear outweigh its costs. This cost-effectiveness analysis aimed to separately assess the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations compared to bimodal hearing (use of unilateral cochlear implant combined with an acoustic hearing aid in the contralateral ear) in children with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss in both ears from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained and costs associated with bilateral cochlear implants over the lifetime horizon were estimated based on a four-state Markov model. The analysis results showed that, at the 2017 mean cost, compared to bimodal hearing, patients receiving bilateral cochlear implants experienced more QALYs but incurred higher costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD$60,607 per QALY gained for simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation, and USD$81,782 per QALY gained for sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. The cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear implants is most sensitive to utility gain associated with second cochlear implant, and cost of bilateral cochlear implants. ICERs increased when the utility gain from bilateral cochlear implants decreased; ICERs exceeded USD$120,000 per QALY gained when the utility gain was halved from 0.03 to 0.015 in both simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implantations. The choice of incremental utility gain associated with the second cochlear implant is an area of considerable uncertainty.

No abstract

Background & AimsRecent observational studies showed that post-operative aspirin use reduces cancer relapse and death in the earliest stages of colorectal cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aspirin as an adjuvant therapy in Stage I and II colorectal cancer patients aged 65 years and older.MethodsTwo five-state Markov models were constructed separately for Stage I and II colorectal cancer using TreeAge Pro 2014. Two hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 individuals at a starting age of 65 years and with colorectal cancer in remission were put through the models separately. Cost-effectiveness of aspirin was evaluated against no treatment (Stage I and II) and capecitabine (Stage II) over a 20-year period from the United States societal perspective. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses and multivariable Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) were performed.ResultsIn the base case analyses, aspirin was cheaper and more effective compared to other comparators in both stages. Sensitivity analyses showed that no treatment and capecitabine (Stage II only) can be cost-effective alternatives if the utility of taking aspirin is below 0.909, aspirin’s annual fatal adverse event probability exceeds 0.57%, aspirin’s relative risk of disease progression is 0.997 or more, or when capecitabine’s relative risk of disease progression is less than 0.228. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) further showed that aspirin could be cost-effective 50% to 80% of the time when the willingness-to-pay threshold was varied from USD20,000 to USD100,000.ConclusionEven with a modest treatment benefit, aspirin is likely to be cost-effective in Stage I and II colorectal cancer, thus suggesting a potential unique role in secondary prevention in this group of patients.