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.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 346 adult males aged 18 years old to 68 years old. Socio-demographic characteristics, oral hygiene practices, and shammah use history were surveyed by using a structured interview questionnaire. The clinical assessment for the presence or absence of periodontal pockets was assessed on the basis of community periodontal index. The chi-square test was used to assess significant differences in study groups in terms of the presence of periodontal pockets. Multivariable logistic regression was selected to assess potential associated factors with the development of periodontal pockets.
RESULTS: Among the 346 adult males, 248 (71.7 %), 30 (8.6 %), and 68 (19.7 %) males never used shammah, were former shammah users, and were current shammah users, respectively. The significant associated factors with the development of periodontal pocket were age group (30 years old and above) (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.03, 95 % CI: 1.13, 3.65; P = 0.018), low family income category (AOR = 2.35, 95 % CI: 1.39, 3.99; P = 0.001), former shammah user (AOR = 2.66, 95 %: CI: 1.15, 6.15; P = 0.022), and current shammah user (AOR = 6.62, 95 %: CI: 3.59, 12.21; P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed that periodontal pockets were significantly associated with age group (30 years old and above), low family income category, former shammah use, and current shammah use. The findings of the current study highlighted the need to develop comprehensive shammah prevention programs and reduce periodontal disease and other shammah-associated diseases.