METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary-care medical center in Thailand. Data were collected from an electronic medical database. Patients were categorized into OMT or non-OMT groups based on their discharge medications. OMT was defined as a combination of aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor blockers. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) which was defined as a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and all-cause mortality. The prescription trends were also estimated. A multivariate Cox's proportional hazard model was used to assess the association of OMT prescriptions at discharge with all-cause mortality and MACE.
RESULTS: A total of 3531 patients discharged with ACS [mean age, 69.5 (SD 12.4) years; 58.3% male] were identified. Only 42.6% were discharged with OMT. The rates of OMT prescriptions did not change over time. However, the prescription of OMT with high-intensity statin was significantly increased from 5.0% in 2013 to 38.3% in 2018 (p for trend <0.001). Multivariable analyses indicated that OMT significantly reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95%CI: 0.63-0.95; p=0.012) and MACE (adjusted HR 0.84; 95%CI: 0.71-0.99; p = 0.044). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients receiving OMT with high-intensity statins exhibited survival benefits (adjusted HR: 0.72; 95%CI: 0.56-0.92; p=0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: The five-drugs comprising OMT were associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and MACE in patients with ACS. Nevertheless, OMT prescribing remains underused and could be enhanced in the real-world setting.
METHODS: A validated computer simulation model (the IMS CORE Diabetes Model) was used to estimate the long-term projection of costs and clinical outcomes. The model was populated with published characteristics of Thai patients with type 2 diabetes. Baseline risk factors were obtained from Thai cohort studies, while relative risk reduction was derived from a meta-analysis study conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Only direct costs were taken into account. Costs of diabetes management and complications were obtained from hospital databases in Thailand. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3 % per annum and presented in US dollars in terms of 2014 dollar value. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: IGlar is associated with a slight gain in quality-adjusted life years (0.488 QALYs), an additional life expectancy (0.677 life years), and an incremental cost of THB119,543 (US$3522.19) compared with NPH insulin. The ICERs were THB244,915/QALY (US$7216.12/QALY) and THB176,525/life-year gained (LYG) (US$5201.09/LYG). The ICER was sensitive to discount rates and IGlar cost. At the acceptable willingness to pay of THB160,000/QALY (US$4714.20/QALY), the probability that IGlar was cost effective was less than 20 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to treatment with NPH insulin, treatment with IGlar in type 2 diabetes patients who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic drugs did not represent good value for money at the acceptable threshold in Thailand.
METHODS: This nested case-control study was performed by collecting data from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2017. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify potential risk factors. The regression coefficients were converted into item scores by dividing each regression coefficient with the minimum coefficient in the model and rounding to the nearest integer. This value was then summed to the total score. The prediction power of the model was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Six clinical risk factors, namely age ≥65 years, benzodiazepine use, history of a cerebrovascular accident, dose of hydrochlorothiazide ≥25 mg, female sex and statin use, were included in our ABCDF-S score. The model showed good power of prediction (AuROC 81.53%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78%-84%) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow X2 = 23.20; P = .39). The positive likelihood ratios of hyponatremia in patients with low risk (score ≤ 6) and high risk (score ≥ 8) were 0.26 (95% CI: 0.21-0.32) and 3.89 (95% CI: 3.11-4.86), respectively.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The screening tool with six risk predictors provided a useful prediction index for thiazide-associated hyponatremia. However, further validation of the tool is warranted prior to its utilization in routine clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to provide a critical summary of EEs of PCVs and identify key drivers of EE findings in LMICs.
METHODS: We searched Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central from their inception to 30 September 2015 and limited the search to LMICs. The search was undertaken using the search strings 'pneumococc* AND conjugat* AND (vaccin* OR immun*)' AND 'economic OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility OR cost-effectiveness OR cost-benefit OR cost-utility' in the abstract, title or keyword fields. To be included, each study had to be a full EE of a PCV and conducted for an LMIC. Studies were extracted and reviewed by two authors. The review involved standard extraction of the study overview or the characteristics of the study, key drivers or parameters of the EE, assumptions behind the analyses and major areas of uncertainty.
RESULTS: Out of 134 records identified, 22 articles were included. Seven studies used a Markov model for analysis, while 15 studies used a decision-tree analytic model. Eighteen studies performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA), with disability-adjusted life-years, quality-adjusted life-years or life-years gained as a measure of health outcome, while four studies focused only on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Both CEA and CUA findings were provided by eight studies. Herd effects and serotype replacement were considered in 10 and 13 studies, respectively. The current evidence shows that both the 10-valent and 13-valent PCVs are probably cost effective in comparison with the 7-valent PCV or no vaccination. The most influential parameters were vaccine efficacy and coverage (in 16 of 22 studies), vaccine price (in 13 of 22 studies), disease incidence (in 11 of 22 studies), mortality from IPD and pneumonia (in 8 of 22 studies) and herd effects (in 4 of 22 studies). The findings were found to be supportive of the products owned by the manufacturers.
CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrated that an infant PCV programme was a cost-effective intervention in most LMICs (in 20 of 22 studies included). The results were sensitive to vaccine efficacy, price, burden of disease and sponsorship. Decision makers should consider EE findings and affordability before adoption of PCVs.
METHODS: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014 US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane register of trials systematically for studies that examined treatment options for patients with MDR- and XDR-AB infections until April 2016. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI from both direct and indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and microbiological cure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and nephrotoxic and non-nephrotoxic adverse events.
Results: A total of 29 studies with 2529 patients (median age 60 years; 65% male; median APACHE II score 19.0) were included. Although there were no statistically significant differences between treatment options, triple therapy with colistin, sulbactam and tigecycline had the highest clinical cure rate. Colistin in combination with sulbactam was associated with a significantly higher microbiological cure rate compared with colistin in combination with tigecycline (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.03-1.47) and colistin monotherapy (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.06-1.38). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were noted between treatment options. Tigecycline-based therapy also appeared less effective for achieving a microbiological cure and is not appropriate for treating bloodstream MDR- and XDR-AB infections.
Conclusions: Combination therapy of colistin with sulbactam demonstrates superiority in terms of microbiological cure with a safety profile similar to that of colistin monotherapy. Thus, our findings support the use of this combination as a treatment for MDR- and XDR-AB infections.
Methods: This cohort study was designed to screen the hearing of newborns using transiently evoked otoacoustic emission and auditory brain stem response, and to determine the risk factors associated with hearing loss of newborns in 3 tertiary hospitals in Northern Thailand. Data were prospectively collected from November 1, 2010 to May 31, 2012. To develop the risk score, clinical-risk indicators were measured by Poisson risk regression. The regression coefficients were transformed into item scores dividing each regression-coefficient with the smallest coefficient in the model, rounding the number to its nearest integer, and adding up to a total score.
Results: Five clinical risk factors (Craniofacial anomaly, Ototoxicity, Birth weight, family history [Relative] of congenital sensorineural hearing loss, and Apgar score) were included in our COBRA score. The screening tool detected, by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, more than 80% of existing hearing loss. The positive-likelihood ratio of hearing loss in patients with scores of 4, 6, and 8 were 25.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.69-43.26), 58.52 (95% CI, 36.26-94.44), and 51.56 (95% CI, 33.74-78.82), respectively. This result was similar to the standard tool (The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing) of 26.72 (95% CI, 20.59-34.66).
Conclusion: A simple screening tool of five predictors provides good prediction indices for newborn hearing loss, which may motivate parents to bring children for further appropriate testing and investigations.