IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v1y2017i3d10.1007_s41669-017-0023-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Abualbishr Alshreef

    () (University of Sheffield)

  • Allan J. Wailoo

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Steven R. Brown

    (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals)

  • James P. Tiernan

    (St James’s University Hospital)

  • Angus J. M. Watson

    (Raigmore Hospital)

  • Katie Biggs

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Mike Bradburn

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Daniel Hind

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Aim Haemorrhoids are a common condition, with nearly 30,000 procedures carried out in England in 2014/15, and result in a significant quality-of-life burden to patients and a financial burden to the healthcare system. This study examined the cost effectiveness of haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) compared with rubber band ligation (RBL) in the treatment of grade II–III haemorrhoids. Method This analyses used data from the HubBLe study, a multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial conducted in 17 acute UK hospitals between September 2012 and August 2015. A full economic evaluation, including long-term cost effectiveness, was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Main outcomes included healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and recurrence. Cost-effectiveness results were presented in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained and cost per recurrence avoided. Extrapolation analysis for 3 years beyond the trial follow-up, two subgroup analyses (by grade of haemorrhoids and recurrence following RBL at baseline), and various sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results In the primary base-case within-trial analysis, the incremental total mean cost per patient for HAL compared with RBL was £1027 (95% confidence interval [CI] £782–£1272, p

Suggested Citation

  • Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0023-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-017-0023-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    2. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    3. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    4. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    5. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0023-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.