Observational studyBMJ open2025
Health economic impact of early versus delayed treatment of herpes simplex virus encephalitis in the UK.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pharmacotherapy variability and precision medicine in neurocritical care.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThanks to the introduction of recent national guidelines for treating herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis, health outcomes have improved. This paper evaluates the health system costs and the health-related quality of life implications of these guidelines. DESIGN AND
settingA sub-analysis of data from a prospective, multi-centre, observational cohort ENCEPH-UK study conducted across 29 hospitals in the UK from 2012 to 2015. STUDY
participantsData for patients aged ≥16 years with a confirmed HSV encephalitis diagnosis admitted for treatment with aciclovir were collected at discharge, 3 and 12 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient health outcomes were measured by the Glasgow outcome score (GOS), modified ranking score (mRS) and the EuroQoL; healthcare costs were estimated per patient at discharge from hospital and at 12 months follow-up. In addition, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D utility scores. Cost-utility analysis was performed using the NHS and Social Care perspective.
resultsA total of 49 patients were included; 35 were treated within 48 hours, 'early' (median (IQR) 8.25 [3.7-20.5]) and 14 were treated after 48 hours 'delayed' (median (IQR) 93.9 [66.7-100.1]). At discharge, 30 (86%) in the early treatment group had a good mRS outcome score (0-3) compared with 4 (29%) in the delayed group. According to GOS, 10 (29%) had a good recovery in the early treatment group, but only 1 (7%) in the delayed group. EQ-5D-3L utility value at discharge was significantly higher for early treatment (0.609 vs 0.221, p<0.000). After adjusting for age and symptom duration at admission, early treatment incurred a lower average cost at discharge, £23,086 (95% CI: £15,186 to £30,987) vs £42,405 (95% CI: £25,457 to £59,354) [p<0.04]. A -£20,218 (95% CI: -£52,173 to £11,783) cost difference was observed at the 12- month follow-up post discharge.
conclusionsThis study suggests that early treatment may be associated with better health outcomes and reduced patient healthcare costs, with a potential for savings to the NHS with faster treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.