METHODS: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022270039), and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were identified through searches in six generic and specialized bibliographic databases, i.e. PubMed, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, PsycINFO, Health Economic Evaluations Database, tufts CEA registry and EconLit, from their inception to 23 October 2022. The cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions is represented by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of studies was assessed using the quality of the health economics studies (QHES) instrument. Data were narratively synthesized in the form of tables and texts. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a permutation matrix was used for quantitative data synthesis rather than a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies, mostly conducted in North America (8/15 studies), were included in the review. The time horizon ranged from a year to a lifetime. Ten out of 15 studies used a micro-simulation, 4/15 studies employed Markov and 1/15 employed a dynamic model. The most commonly used interventions reported include technology based (5/15), nurse involved (2/15), directly observed therapy (2/15), case manager involved (1/15) and others that involved multi-component interventions (5/15). In 1/15 studies, interventions gained higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with cost savings. The interventions in 14/15 studies were more effective but at a higher cost, and the overall ICER was well below the acceptable threshold mentioned in each study, indicating the interventions could potentially be implemented after careful interpretation. The studies were graded as high quality (13/15) or fair quality (2/15), with some methodological inconsistencies reported.
CONCLUSION: Counselling and smartphone-based interventions are cost-effective, and they have the potential to reduce the chronic adherence problem significantly. The quality of decision models can be improved by addressing inconsistencies in model selection, data inputs incorporated into models and uncertainty assessment methods.
METHODOLOGY: A single-center cohort study was performed at Indus Hospital and Health Network, Karachi, Pakistan, between April 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. This study included 333 hospitalized hypertensive COVID-19 patients and evaluated their clinical characteristics and survival outcomes. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied in IBM SPSS 27.0 to determine the predictors of mortality.
RESULTS: The majority of patients were females (54.7%), the median age was 62 [55-70] years, with co-existing diabetes (56.5%) and severely ill (52.6%). The independent predictors of mortality identified were age ≥ 65 years (aOR 20.89, 95% CI, 5.81-75.15; p < 0.001), pulse rate (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.63; p = 0.006), serum creatinine (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11-1.63; p = 0.002), use of antibiotics (aOR 3.40, 95% CI 1.29-8.98; p = 0.014)), corticosteroid (aOR 49.68, 95% CI 1.83-1350.31; p = 0.020), and who needed high flow oxygen supply (aOR 13.08, 95% CI 1.70-100.54; p < 0.001), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR 229.01, 95% CI 29.30-1789.71; p < 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR 379.54, 95% CI 36.60-3935.87; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that older age, elevated pulse rate, serum creatinine, use of antibiotics and corticosteroids, and the need for mechanical ventilation predict mortality among hypertensive COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to explore the level of awareness, attitude, and practice of PM in Pakistan along with the challenges faced by the oncologists for the treatment of cancer using the PM approach.
METHODS: Phenomenology-based qualitative approach was used. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted using the purposive sampling approach among oncologists in Lahore, Pakistan. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify themes and sub-themes.
RESULTS: Out of 14 physicians interviewed 11 were aware of PM. They were keen on training to hone their skills and agreed on providing PM. Oncologists believed PM was expensive and given to affluent patients only. Other impeding factors include cost, lack of knowledge, and drug unavailability.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite basic knowledge and will to practice, resource and cost constraints were marked as significant barriers. Additional training programs and inclusion into the curriculum may help to pave the way to PM implementation in the future. In addition, health authorities and policymakers need to ensure a cheaper PM treatment can be made available for all cancer patients.