Julia E. Aledort
RAND Corporation
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Julia E. Aledort.
Nature | 2006
Emmett B. Keeler; Mark D. Perkins; Peter M. Small; Christy Hanson; Steven G. Reed; Jane Cunningham; Julia E. Aledort; Lee Hillborne; Maria E. Rafael; Federico Girosi; Christopher Dye
We estimated the impact of hypothetical new diagnostic tests for tuberculosis (TB) in patients with persistent cough in developing countries. We found that a variety of new tests could help better identify TB cases and target treatment, thereby reducing the burden of disease.
Nature | 2006
Federico Girosi; Stuart S. Olmsted; Emmett B. Keeler; Deborah C. Hay Burgess; Yee-Wei Lim; Julia E. Aledort; Maria E. Rafael; Karen A. Ricci; Rob Boer; Lee H. Hilborne; Kathryn Pitkin Derose; Christopher Beighley; Carol A. Dahl; Jeffrey Wasserman
Developing a strategy for investment in diagnostic technologies requires an understanding of the need for, and the health impact of, potential new tools, as well as the necessary performance characteristics and user requirements. In this paper, we outline an approach for modelling the health benefits of new diagnostic tools.
Nature | 2006
Julia E. Aledort; Allan R. Ronald; Maria E. Rafael; Federico Girosi; Peter Vickerman; Sylvie M. Le Blancq; Alan Landay; King K. Holmes; Renee Ridzon; Nicholas Hellmann; Rosanna W. Peeling
There is a great need for improved diagnosis of curable bacterial sexually transmitted infections among women in developing countries. We found that wider access to new diagnostic tests has a greater overall impact on health outcomes than improvements in test sensitivity or specificity.
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology | 2007
David L. Veenstra; Sean D. Sullivan; Geoffry M. Dusheiko; Michael Jacobs; Julia E. Aledort; Gavin Lewis; Kavita Patel
Background Peginterferon &agr;-2a (40 kDa), a new treatment for chronic hepatitis B, produces seroconversion within 48 weeks in approximately 32% of HBeAg-positive patients. Over a defined treatment duration it offers improved efficacy over lamivudine, but at higher cost. We assessed the clinical outcomes and costs, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, of 48 weeks of peginterferon &agr;-2a (40 kDa) vs. 4 years of lamivudine. Methods Cost-effectiveness was analysed using a state-transition Markov model simulating HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B natural history. Efficacy data were obtained from a large randomized trial comparing peginterferon &agr;-2a (40 kDa) with lamivudine over 48 weeks. Use of adefovir salvage treatment for lamivudine-resistant patients was also evaluated. Long-term lamivudine efficacy, treatment durability, disease progression, cost, and quality-of-life estimates were derived from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. Results Treatment with peginterferon &agr;-2a (40 kDa) for 48 weeks resulted in higher discounted total healthcare costs (£3100), but an increase of 0.3 discounted quality-adjusted life years compared with long-term lamivudine, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10 400 per quality-adjusted life year gained (£8300–£15 400 in one-way sensitivity analyses). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed intervention was below the £30 000/QALY threshold in over 95% of the simulations. When adefovir was included for patients with lamivudine resistance, peginterferon &agr;-2a (40 kDa) had an incremental cost of £6100/QALY gained. Conclusions Treatment with peginterferon &agr;-2a (40 kDa) for a defined duration of 48 weeks, although more expensive than lamivudine therapy, provides improvement in health outcomes, with a cost-effectiveness ratio well below the current UK cost-effectiveness threshold.
Health Services Research | 2011
Teryl K. Nuckols; Elizabeth A. McGlynn; John L. Adams; Julie Lai; Myong-Hyun Go; Joan Keesey; Julia E. Aledort
Objective. To assess the cost implications to payers of improving glucose management among adults with type 2 diabetes. Data Source/Study Setting. Medical-record data from the Community Quality Index (CQI) study (1996-2002), pharmaceutical claims from four Massachusetts health plans (2004-2006), Medicare Fee Schedule (2009), published literature. Study Design. Probability tree depicting glucose management over 1 year. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. We determined how frequently CQI study subjects received recommended care processes and attained Health Care Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) treatment goals, estimated utilization of visits and medications associated with recommended care, assigned costs based on utilization, and then modeled how hospitalization rates, costs, and goal attainment would change if all recommended care was provided. Principal Findings. Relative to current care, improved glucose management would cost U.S.
BMC Public Health | 2007
Julia E. Aledort; Nicole Lurie; Jeffrey Wasserman; Samuel A. Bozzette
327 (U.S.
RAND Technical report | 2006
David J. Dausey; Julia E. Aledort; Nicole Lurie
192-711 in sensitivity analyses) more per person with diabetes annually, largely due to antihyperglycemic medications. Cost-effectiveness to payers, defined as incremental annual cost per patient newly attaining any one of three HEDIS goals, would be U.S.
RAND Technical report | 2006
Julia E. Aledort; Nicole Lurie; Karen A. Ricci; David J. Dausey; Stefanie Stern
1,128; including glycemic crises reduces this to U.S.
Archive | 2006
Federico Girosi; Maria E. Rafael; Julia E. Aledort; Yee-Wei Lim; Rob Boer; Karen A. Ricci; Emmett B. Keeler
555-1,021. Conclusions. The cost of improving glucose management appears modest relative to diabetes-related health care expenditures. The incremental cost per patient newly attaining HEDIS goals enables payers to consider costs as well as outcomes that are linked to future profitability.
Health Services Research | 2011
Teryl K. Nuckols; Julia E. Aledort; John L. Adams; Julie Lai; Myong-Hyun Go; Joan Keesey; Elizabeth A. McGlynn