Network


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

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Emma Tassie is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Emma Tassie.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2014

A Randomized Trial Comparing Treatments for Varicose Veins

Julie Brittenden; Seonaidh Cotton; Andrew Elders; Craig Ramsay; John Norrie; Jennifer Burr; Bruce Campbell; Paul Bachoo; Ian Chetter; Michael Gough; J. J. Earnshaw; Tim Lees; Julian Scott; Sara A Baker; Jill J Francis; Emma Tassie; Graham Scotland; Samantha Wileman; Marion K Campbell

BACKGROUND Ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation are widely used alternatives to surgery for the treatment of varicose veins, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain uncertain. METHODS In a randomized trial involving 798 participants with primary varicose veins at 11 centers in the United Kingdom, we compared the outcomes of foam, laser, and surgical treatments. Primary outcomes at 6 months were disease-specific quality of life and generic quality of life, as measured on several scales. Secondary outcomes included complications and measures of clinical success. RESULTS After adjustment for baseline scores and other covariates, the mean disease-specific quality of life was slightly worse after treatment with foam than after surgery (P=0.006) but was similar in the laser and surgery groups. There were no significant differences between the surgery group and the foam or the laser group in measures of generic quality of life. The frequency of procedural complications was similar in the foam group (6%) and the surgery group (7%) but was lower in the laser group (1%) than in the surgery group (P<0.001); the frequency of serious adverse events (approximately 3%) was similar among the groups. Measures of clinical success were similar among the groups, but successful ablation of the main trunks of the saphenous vein was less common in the foam group than in the surgery group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Quality-of-life measures were generally similar among the study groups, with the exception of a slightly worse disease-specific quality of life in the foam group than in the surgery group. All treatments had similar clinical efficacy, but complications were less frequent after laser treatment and ablation rates were lower after foam treatment. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51995477.).


British Journal of Surgery | 2014

Cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation or surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins from the randomized CLASS trial

Emma Tassie; Graham Scotland; Julie Brittenden; Seonaidh Cotton; Andrew Elders; Marion K Campbell; Bruce Campbell; Michael J. Gough; Jennifer Burr; Craig Ramsay

The treatment of patients with varicose veins constitutes a considerable workload and financial burden to the National Health Service. This study aimed to assess the cost‐effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) compared with conventional surgery as treatment for primary varicose veins.


BMJ Open | 2015

Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Pawana Sharma; Graham Scotland; Moira Cruickshank; Emma Tassie; Cynthia Fraser; Christopher Burton; Bernard L Croal; Craig Ramsay; Miriam Brazzelli

Objectives To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy compared with standard clinic care. Design Systematic review of current evidence and economic modelling. Data sources Major electronic databases were searched up to May 2013. The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, routine sources of cost data and advice from clinical experts. Study eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing self-monitoring versus standard clinical care in people with different clinical conditions. Self-monitoring included both self-management (patients conducted the tests and adjusted their treatment according to an algorithm) and self-testing (patients conducted the tests, but received treatment recommendations from a clinician). Various point-of-care coagulometers were considered. Results 26 RCTs (8763 participants) were included. Both self-management and self-testing were as safe as standard care in terms of major bleeding events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45, p=0.690, and RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, p=0.92, respectively). Self-management was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.69, p≤0.001) and with a borderline significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, p=0.06) than standard care. Self-testing resulted in a modest increase in time in therapeutic range compared with standard care (weighted mean difference, WMD 4.4%, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18, p=0.02). Total health and social care costs over 10 years were £7324 with standard care and £7326 with self-monitoring (estimated quality adjusted life year, QALY gain was 0.028). Self-monitoring was found to have ∼80% probability of being cost-effective compared with standard care applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. Within the base case model, applying the pooled relative effect of thromboembolic events, self-management alone was highly cost-effective while self-testing was not. Conclusions Self-monitoring appears to be a safe and cost-effective option. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42013004944.


Health Technology Assessment | 2015

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture: systematic review and economic evaluation

Miriam Brazzelli; Moira Cruickshank; Emma Tassie; Paul McNamee; Clare Robertson; Andrew Elders; Cynthia Fraser; R Hernández; David Lawrie; Craig Ramsay

BACKGROUND Dupuytrens disease is a slowly progressive condition of the hand, characterised by the formation of nodules in the palm that gradually develop into fibrotic cords. Contracture of the cords produces deformities of the fingers. Surgery is recommended for moderate and severe contractures, but complications and/or recurrences are frequent. Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) has been developed as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for some patients. OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collagenase as an alternative to surgery for adults with Dupuytrens contracture with a palpable cord. DATA SOURCES We searched all major electronic databases from 1990 to February 2014. REVIEW METHODS Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative studies and observational studies involving collagenase and/or surgical interventions were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of collagenase, percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF) and limited fasciectomy (LF). Results were reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate model and parameter uncertainty. RESULTS Five RCTs comparing collagenase with placebo (493 participants), three RCTs comparing surgical techniques (334 participants), two non-randomised studies comparing collagenase and surgery (105 participants), five non-randomised comparative studies assessing various surgical procedures (3571 participants) and 15 collagenase case series (3154 participants) were included. Meta-analyses of RCTs assessing CCH versus placebo were performed. Joints randomised to collagenase were more likely to achieve clinical success. Collagenase-treated participants experienced significant reduction in contracture and an increased range of motion compared with placebo-treated participants. Participants treated with collagenase also experienced significantly more adverse events, most of which were mild or moderate. Four serious adverse events were observed in the collagenase group: two tendon ruptures, one pulley rupture and one complex regional pain syndrome. Two tendon ruptures were also reported in two collagenase case series. Non-randomised studies comparing collagenase with surgery produced variable results and were at high risk of bias. Serious adverse events across surgery studies were low. Recurrence rates ranged from 0% (at 90 days) to 100% (at 8 years) for collagenase and from 0% (at 2.7 years for fasciectomy) to 85% (at 5 years for PNF) for surgery. The results of the de novo economic analysis show that PNF was the cheapest treatment option, whereas LF generated the greatest QALY gains. Collagenase was more costly and generated fewer QALYs compared with LF. LF was £1199 more costly and generated an additional 0.11 QALYs in comparison with PNF. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £10,871 per QALY gained. Two subgroup analyses were conducted for a population of patients with moderate and severe disease and up to two joints affected. In both subgroup analyses, collagenase remained dominated. LIMITATIONS The main limitation of the review was the lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing collagenase with surgery and the limited evidence base for estimating the effects of specific surgical procedures (fasciectomy and PNF). Substantial differences across studies further limited the comparability of available evidence. The economic model was derived from a naive indirect comparison and was hindered by a lack of suitable data. In addition, there was considerable uncertainty about the appropriateness of many assumptions and parameters used in the model. CONCLUSIONS Collagenase was significantly better than placebo. There was no evidence that collagenase was clinically better or worse than surgical treatments. LF was the most cost-effective choice to treat moderate to severe contractures, whereas collagenase was not. However, the results of the cost-utility analysis are based on a naive indirect comparison of clinical effectiveness, and a RCT is required to confirm or refute these findings. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006248. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.


Health Technology Assessment | 2015

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins : results from the comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial

Julie Brittenden; Seonaidh Cotton; Andrew Elders; Emma Tassie; Graham Scotland; Craig Ramsay; John Norrie; Jennifer Burr; Jill J Francis; Samantha Wileman; Bruce Campbell; Paul Bachoo; Ian Chetter; Michael Gough; J. J. Earnshaw; Tim Lees; Julian Scott; Sara A Baker; Graeme MacLennan; Maria Prior; Denise Bolsover; Marion K Campbell


Archive | 2015

Additional trial results tables

Julie Brittenden; Seonaidh Cotton; Andrew Elders; Emma Tassie; Graham Scotland; Craig Ramsay; John Norrie; Jennifer Burr; Jill J Francis; Samantha Wileman; Bruce Campbell; Paul Bachoo; Ian Chetter; Michael Gough; J. J. Earnshaw; Tim Lees; Julian Scott; Sara A Baker; Graeme MacLennan; Maria Prior; Denise Bolsover; Marion Campbell


Archive | 2015

Sensitivity analyses: replacing missing standard deviation in the meta-analyses assessing change in range of motion and change in contracture

Miriam Brazzelli; Moira Cruickshank; Emma Tassie; Paul McNamee; Clare Robertson; Andrew Elders; Cynthia Fraser; R Hernández; David Lawrie; Craig Ramsay


Archive | 2015

Behavioural Recovery After treatment for Varicose Veins study paperwork

Julie Brittenden; Seonaidh Cotton; Andrew Elders; Emma Tassie; Graham Scotland; Craig Ramsay; John Norrie; Jennifer Burr; Jill J Francis; Samantha Wileman; Bruce Campbell; Paul Bachoo; Ian Chetter; Michael Gough; J. J. Earnshaw; Tim Lees; Julian Scott; Sara A Baker; Graeme MacLennan; Maria Prior; Denise Bolsover; Marion Campbell


Archive | 2015

Comparison of surgery, endovenous laser ablation and foam sclerotherapy

Julie Brittenden; Seonaidh Cotton; Andrew Elders; Emma Tassie; Graham Scotland; Craig Ramsay; John Norrie; Jennifer Burr; Jill J Francis; Samantha Wileman; Bruce Campbell; Paul Bachoo; Ian Chetter; Michael Gough; J. J. Earnshaw; Tim Lees; Julian Scott; Sara A Baker; Graeme MacLennan; Maria Prior; Denise Bolsover; Marion Campbell


Archive | 2015

Risk-of-bias assessment for non-randomised comparative studies on surgical procedures

Miriam Brazzelli; Moira Cruickshank; Emma Tassie; Paul McNamee; Clare Robertson; Andrew Elders; Cynthia Fraser; R Hernández; David Lawrie; Craig Ramsay

Collaboration


Dive into the Emma Tassie's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrew Elders

Glasgow Caledonian University

View shared research outputs
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
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge