DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.
STUDY SELECTION: All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer risk with dietary carbohydrate, fiber and sugar intake.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population based case-control study was conducted in Malaysia with 382 breast cancer patients and 382 controls. Food intake pattern was assessed via an interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compute odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a broad range of potential confounders were included in analysis.
RESULTS: A significant two fold increased risk of breast cancer among premenopausal (OR Q4 to Q1=1.93, 95%CI: 1.53-2.61, p-trend=0.001) and postmenopausal (OR Q4 to Q1=1.87, 95%CI: 1.03-2.61, p-trend=0.045) women was observed in the highest quartile of sugar. A higher intake of dietary fiber was associated with a significantly lower breast cancer risk among both premenopausal (OR Q4 to Q1=0.31, 95%CI: 0.12-0.79, p-trend=0.009) and postmenopausal (OR Q4 to Q1=0.23, 95%CI: 0.07-0.76, p-trend=0.031) women.
CONCLUSIONS: Sugar and dietary fiber intake were independently related to pre- and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. However, no association was observed for dietary carbohydrate intake.