Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Elizabeth A. Stokes is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Elizabeth A. Stokes.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2015

Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion after Cardiac Surgery

Gavin J. Murphy; Katie Pike; Chris A. Rogers; Sarah Wordsworth; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Gianni D. Angelini; Barnaby C Reeves

BACKGROUND Whether a restrictive threshold for hemoglobin level in red-cell transfusions, as compared with a liberal threshold, reduces postoperative morbidity and health care costs after cardiac surgery is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, parallel-group trial in which patients older than 16 years of age who were undergoing nonemergency cardiac surgery were recruited from 17 centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with a postoperative hemoglobin level of less than 9 g per deciliter were randomly assigned to a restrictive transfusion threshold (hemoglobin level <7.5 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion threshold (hemoglobin level <9 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a serious infection (sepsis or wound infection) or an ischemic event (permanent stroke [confirmation on brain imaging and deficit in motor, sensory, or coordination functions], myocardial infarction, infarction of the gut, or acute kidney injury) within 3 months after randomization. Health care costs, excluding the index surgery, were estimated from the day of surgery to 3 months after surgery. RESULTS A total of 2007 patients underwent randomization; 4 participants withdrew, leaving 1000 in the restrictive-threshold group and 1003 in the liberal-threshold group. Transfusion rates after randomization were 53.4% and 92.2% in the two groups, respectively. The primary outcome occurred in 35.1% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group and 33.0% of the patients in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.34; P=0.30); there was no indication of heterogeneity according to subgroup. There were more deaths in the restrictive-threshold group than in the liberal-threshold group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.67; P=0.045). Serious postoperative complications, excluding primary-outcome events, occurred in 35.7% of participants in the restrictive-threshold group and 34.2% of participants in the liberal-threshold group. Total costs did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS A restrictive transfusion threshold after cardiac surgery was not superior to a liberal threshold with respect to morbidity or health care costs. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN70923932.).


British Journal of Surgery | 2004

Randomized clinical trial of the effects of preoperative and postoperative oral nutritional supplements on clinical course and cost of care

F. Smedley; T. Bowling; Marilyn James; Elizabeth A. Stokes; C. Goodger; O. O'Connor; C. Oldale; Peter Jones; D. Silk

Postoperative oral nutritional supplementation has been shown to be of clinical benefit. This study examined the clinical effects and cost of administration of oral supplements both before and after surgery.


International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care | 2005

Cost and health status analysis after autologous chondrocyte implantation and mosaicplasty: a retrospective comparison.

Sarah Derrett; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Marilyn James; W. Bartlett; G. Bentley

OBJECTIVES Chondral defects of the knee cartilage are prevalent. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and mosaicplasty are increasingly used to treat symptomatic knee defects. This study assessed the costs and health status outcomes after ACI and mosaicplasty. METHODS Patients were eligible to participate in this cross-sectional study if they received ACI or mosaicplasty at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital between 1997 and 2001 or were on a waiting list for ACI. Secondary-care resource use was collected to 2 years postoperatively using a resource collection proforma. Participants responded to postal questions about sociodemographic characteristics and knee-related (Modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System) and general health status (EQ-5D). RESULTS Fifty-three ACI, twenty mosaicplasty, and twenty-two patients waiting for ACI participated. The average cost per patient was higher for ACI (10,600 pounds sterling: 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 10,036 pounds sterling-11,214 pounds sterling) than mosaicplasty (7,948 pounds sterling: 95 percent CI, 6,957 pounds sterling-9,243 pounds sterling). Postoperatively, ACI and mosaicplasty patients (combined) experienced better health status than those waiting for ACI. ACI patients tended to have better health status outcomes than mosaicplasty patients (not statistically significant). Estimated average EQ-5D social tariff improvements for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) calculations were 0.23 (ACI) and 0.06 (mosaicplasty). Average costs per QALY were 23,043 pounds sterling (ACI) and 66,233 pounds sterling (mosaicplasty). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for providing ACI over mosaicplasty was 16,349 pounds sterling. CONCLUSIONS Average costs were higher for ACI than mosaicplasty. However, both the estimated cost per QALY and ICER for providing ACI over mosaicplasty fell beneath an implicit English funding threshold of 30,000 pounds sterling per QALY. Prospective studies should include measures of utility to confirm the estimated cost utility ratios of ACI and mosaicplasty.


BMJ Open | 2015

Costs and quality of life associated with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: cohort analysis of patients in a cluster randomised trial

Helen Campbell; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Danielle Bargo; R. F. A. Logan; Ana Mora; Renate Hodge; Alastair Gray; Martin W. James; Adrian J. Stanley; Simon M. Everett; Helen Dallal; John Greenaway; Claire Dyer; Charlotte Llewelyn; Timothy S. Walsh; Travis Spl.; Michael F. Murphy; Vipul Jairath

Objectives Data on costs associated with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) are scarce. We provide estimates of UK healthcare costs, indirect costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients presenting to hospital with AUGIB. Setting Six UK university hospitals with >20 AUGIB admissions per month, >400 adult beds, 24 h endoscopy, and on-site access to intensive care and surgery. Participants 936 patients aged ≥18 years, admitted with AUGIB, and enrolled between August 2012 and March 2013 in the TRIGGER trial of AUGIB comparing restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds. Primary and secondary outcome measures Healthcare resource use during hospitalisation and postdischarge up to 28  days, unpaid informal care, time away from paid employment and HRQoL using the EuroQol EQ-5D at 28  days were measured prospectively. National unit costs were used to value resource use. Initial in-hospital treatment costs were upscaled to a UK level. Results Mean initial in-hospital costs were £2458 (SE=£216) per patient. Inpatient bed days, endoscopy and RBC transfusions were key cost drivers. Postdischarge healthcare costs were £391 (£44) per patient. One-third of patients received unpaid informal care and the quarter in paid employment required time away from work. Mean HRQoL for survivors was 0.74. Annual initial inhospital treatment cost for all AUGIB cases in the UK was estimated to be £155.5 million, with exploratory analyses of the incremental costs of treating hospitalised patients developing AUGIB generating figures of between £143 million and £168 million. Conclusions AUGIB is a large burden for UK hospitals with inpatient stay, endoscopy and RBC transfusions as the main cost drivers. It is anticipated that this work will enable quantification of the impact of cost reduction strategies in AUGIB and will inform economic analyses of novel or existing interventions for AUGIB. Trial registration number ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532.


Transfusion Medicine Reviews | 2013

Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Rationale and Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Feasibility Trial

Vipul Jairath; Brennan C Kahan; Alasdair Gray; Caroline J Doré; Ana Mora; Claire Dyer; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Charlotte Llewelyn; Helen Dallal; Simon M. Everett; Martin W. James; Adrian J. Stanley; Nicholas I. Church; Melanie Darwent; John Greenaway; Ivan Le Jeune; Ian Reckless; Helen Campbell; Sarah Meredith; K. R. Palmer; Richard F. Logan; Simon Travis; Timothy S. Walsh; Michael F. Murphy

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is the commonest reason for hospitalization with hemorrhage in the UK and the leading indication for transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs). Observational studies suggest an association between more liberal RBC transfusion and adverse patient outcomes, and a recent randomised trial reported increased further bleeding and mortality with a liberal transfusion policy. TRIGGER (Transfusion in Gastrointestinal Bleeding) is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial which aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion policy in adult patients admitted with AUGIB. The trial will take place in 6 UK hospitals, and each centre will be randomly allocated to a transfusion policy. Clinicians throughout each hospital will manage all eligible patients according to the transfusion policy for the 6-month trial recruitment period. In the restrictive centers, patients become eligible for RBC transfusion when their hemoglobin is < 8 g/dL. In the liberal centers patients become eligible for transfusion once their hemoglobin is < 10 g/dL. All clinicians will have the discretion to transfuse outside of the policy but will be asked to document the reasons for doing so. Feasibility outcome measures include protocol adherence, recruitment rate, and evidence of selection bias. Clinical outcome measures include further bleeding, mortality, thromboembolic events, and infections. Quality of life will be measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D at day 28, and the costs associated with hospitalization for AUGIB in the UK will be estimated. Consent will be sought from participants or their representatives according to patient capacity for use of routine hospital data and day 28 follow up. The study has ethical approval for conduct in England and Scotland. Results will be analysed according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan and disseminated in peer reviewed publications to relevant stakeholders. The results of this study will inform the feasibility and design of a phase III randomized trial.


Resuscitation | 2016

Design and implementation of the AIRWAYS-2 trial: A multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out of hospital cardiac arrest

Jodi Taylor; Sarah Black; Stephen Brett; Kim Kirby; Jerry P. Nolan; Barnaby C Reeves; Maria Robinson; Chris A. Rogers; Lauren J Scott; Adrian South; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Matthew Thomas; Sarah Voss; Sarah Wordsworth; Jonathan Benger

Health outcomes after out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are extremely poor, with only 7-9% of patients in the United Kingdom (UK) surviving to hospital discharge. Currently emergency medical services (EMS) use either tracheal intubation or newer supraglottic airway devices (SGAs) to provide advanced airway management during OHCA. Equipoise between the two techniques has led to calls for a well-designed randomised controlled trial. The primary objective of the AIRWAYS-2 trial is to assess whether the clinical effectiveness of the i-gel, a second-generation SGA, is superior to tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of OHCA patients in the UK. Paramedics recruited to the AIRWAYS-2 trial are randomised to use either tracheal intubation or i-gel as their first advanced airway intervention. Adults who have had a non-traumatic OHCA and are attended by an AIRWAYS-2 paramedic are retrospectively assessed against eligibility criteria for inclusion. The primary outcome is the modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge. Secondary objectives are to: (i) estimate differences between groups in outcome measures relating to airway management, hospital stay and recovery at 3 and 6 months; (ii) estimate the cost effectiveness of the i-gel compared to tracheal intubation. Because OHCA patient needs immediate treatment there are several unusual features and challenges to the design and implementation of this trial; these include level of randomisation, the automatic enrolment model, enrolment of patients that lack capacity and minimisation of bias. Patient enrolment began in June 2015. The trial will enrol 9070 patients over two years. The results are expected to influence future resuscitation guidelines. Trial Registration ISRCTN: 08256118.


Transfusion and Apheresis Science | 2014

A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of Transfusion Indication Threshold Reduction on transfusion rates, morbidity and healthcare resource use following cardiac surgery: study protocol.

Rachel Cm Brierley; Katie Pike; Alice Miles; Sarah Wordsworth; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Andrew D Mumford; Alan Cohen; Gianni D. Angelini; Gavin J. Murphy; Chris A. Rogers; Barnaby C Reeves

Thresholds for red blood cell transfusion following cardiac surgery vary by hospital and surgeon. The TITRe2 multi-centre randomised controlled trial aims to randomise 2000 patients from 17 United Kingdom centres, and tests the hypothesis that a restrictive transfusion threshold will reduce postoperative morbidity and health service costs compared to a liberal threshold. Patients consent to take part in the study pre-operatively but are only randomised if their haemoglobin falls below 9 g/dL during their post-operative hospital stay. The primary outcome is a binary composite outcome of any serious infectious or ischaemic event in the first three months after randomisation. Many challenges have been encountered in the set-up and running of the study.


Health Technology Assessment | 2016

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of Transfusion Indication Threshold Reduction on transfusion rates, morbidity and health-care resource use following cardiac surgery (TITRe2).

Barnaby C Reeves; Katie Pike; Chris A. Rogers; Rachel Cm Brierley; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Sarah Wordsworth; Rachel L Nash; Alice Miles; Andrew D Mumford; Alan Cohen; Gianni D. Angelini; Gavin J. Murphy

BACKGROUND Uncertainty about optimal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in cardiac surgery is reflected in widely varying transfusion rates between surgeons and cardiac centres. OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that a restrictive compared with a liberal threshold for red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery reduces post-operative morbidity and health-care costs. DESIGN Multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial and within-trial cost-utility analysis from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We could not blind health-care staff but tried to blind participants. Random allocations were generated by computer and minimised by centre and operation. SETTING Seventeen specialist cardiac surgery centres in UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Patients aged > 16 years undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery with post-operative haemoglobin < 9 g/dl. Exclusion criteria were: unwilling to have transfusion owing to beliefs; platelet, red blood cell or clotting disorder; ongoing or recurrent sepsis; and critical limb ischaemia. INTERVENTIONS Participants in the liberal group were eligible for transfusion immediately after randomisation (post-operative haemoglobin < 9 g/dl); participants in the restrictive group were eligible for transfusion if their post-operative haemoglobin fell to < 7.5 g/dl during the index hospital stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite outcome of any serious infectious (sepsis or wound infection) or ischaemic event (permanent stroke, myocardial infarction, gut infarction or acute kidney injury) during the 3 months after randomisation. Events were verified or adjudicated by blinded personnel. Secondary outcomes included blood products transfused; infectious events; ischaemic events; quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions); duration of intensive care or high-dependency unit stay; duration of hospital stay; significant pulmonary morbidity; all-cause mortality; resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS We randomised 2007 participants between 15 July 2009 and 18 February 2013; four withdrew, leaving 1000 and 1003 in the restrictive and liberal groups, respectively. Transfusion rates after randomisation were 53.4% (534/1000) and 92.2% (925/1003). The primary outcome occurred in 35.1% (331/944) and 33.0% (317/962) of participants in the restrictive and liberal groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.34; p = 0.30], respectively. There were no subgroup effects for the primary outcome, although some sensitivity analyses substantially altered the estimated OR. There were no differences for secondary clinical outcomes except for mortality, with more deaths in the restrictive group (4.2%, 42/1000 vs. 2.6%, 26/1003; hazard ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.67; p = 0.045). Serious post-operative complications excluding primary outcome events occurred in 35.7% (354/991) and 34.2% (339/991) of participants in the restrictive and liberal groups, respectively. The total cost per participant from surgery to 3 months postoperatively differed little by group, just £182 less (standard error £488) in the restrictive group, largely owing to the difference in red blood cells cost. In the base-case cost-effectiveness results, the point estimate suggested that the restrictive threshold was cost-effective; however, this result was very uncertain partly owing to the negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years gained. CONCLUSIONS A restrictive transfusion threshold is not superior to a liberal threshold after cardiac surgery. This finding supports restrictive transfusion due to reduced consumption and costs of red blood cells. However, secondary findings create uncertainty about recommending restrictive transfusion and prompt a new hypothesis that liberal transfusion may be superior after cardiac surgery. Reanalyses of existing trial datasets, excluding all participants who did not breach the liberal threshold, followed by a meta-analysis of the reanalysed results are the most obvious research steps to address the new hypothesis about the possible harm of red blood cell transfusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70923932. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Transfusion | 2014

Prophylactic platelet transfusions in patients with blood malignancies: cost analysis of a randomized trial.

Helen Campbell; Lise J Estcourt; Elizabeth A. Stokes; Charlotte Llewelyn; Michael F. Murphy; Erica M. Wood; Simon J. Stanworth

This cost analysis uses data from a randomized trial comparing a no prophylaxis versus prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion policy (counts <10 × 109/L) in adult patients with hematologic malignancies. Results are presented for all patients and separately for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (autoHSCT) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT) patients.


BMJ Open | 2016

Are lower levels of red blood cell transfusion more cost-effective than liberal levels after cardiac surgery? Findings from the TITRe2 randomised controlled trial

Elizabeth A. Stokes; Sarah Wordsworth; Danielle Bargo; Katie Pike; Chris A. Rogers; Rachel Cm Brierley; Gianni D. Angelini; Gavin J. Murphy; Barnaby C Reeves

Objective To assess the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of a restrictive versus a liberal red blood cell transfusion threshold after cardiac surgery. Design A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis with a 3-month time horizon, based on a multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services in the UK. Setting 17 specialist cardiac surgery centres in UK NHS hospitals. Participants 2003 patients aged >16 years undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery with a postoperative haemoglobin of <9 g/dL. Interventions Restrictive (transfuse if haemoglobin <7.5 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse if haemoglobin <9 g/dL) threshold during hospitalisation after surgery. Main outcome measures Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-3L to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results The total costs from surgery up to 3 months were £17 945 and £18 127 in the restrictive and liberal groups (mean difference is −£182, 95% CI −£1108 to £744). The cost difference was largely attributable to the difference in the cost of red blood cells. Mean QALYs to 3 months were 0.18 in both groups (restrictive minus liberal difference is 0.0004, 95% CI −0.0037 to 0.0045). The point estimate for the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the restrictive group was slightly more effective and slightly less costly than the liberal group and, therefore, cost-effective. However, there is great uncertainty around these results partly due to the negligible differences in QALYs gained. Conclusions We conclude that there is no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of restrictive and liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery. Trial registration number ISRCTN70923932; Results.

Collaboration


Dive into the Elizabeth A. Stokes's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alan Cohen

University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alice Miles

Bristol Royal Infirmary

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marilyn James

University of Nottingham

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge