MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether combined total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) technique with propofol/remifentanil is associated with less SSEP suppression when compared to combined volatile agent desflurane/remifentanil anesthesia during corrective scoliosis surgery at a comparable depth of anesthesia.
DESIGN: It is a randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: The study was conducted at the Single tertiary University Hospital during October 2014 to June 2015.
PATIENTS: Patients who required SSEP and had no neurological deficits, and were of American Society of Anesthesiologist I and II physical status, were included. Patients who had sensory or motor deficits preoperatively and significant cardiovascular and respiratory disease were excluded. A total of 72 patients were screened, and 67 patients were randomized and allocated to two groups: 34 in desflurane/remifentanil group and 33 in TIVA group. Four patients from desflurane/remifentanil group and three from TIVA group were withdrawn due to decrease in SSEP amplitude to <0.3 µV after induction of anesthesia. Thirty patients from each group were analyzed.
INTERVENTIONS: Sixty-seven patients were randomized to receive TIVA or desflurane/remifentanil anesthesia.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The measurements taken were the amplitude and latency of SSEP monitoring at five different time points during surgery: before and after the induction of anesthesia, at skin incision, at pedicle screw insertion, and at rod insertion.
RESULTS: Both anesthesia techniques, TIVA and desflurane/remifentanil, resulted in decreased amplitude and increased latencies of both cervical and cortical peaks. The desflurane/remifentanil group had a significantly greater reduction in the amplitude ( p = 0.004) and an increase in latency ( p = 0.002) of P40 compared with the TIVA group. However, there were no differences in both amplitude ( p = 0.214) and latency ( p = 0.16) in cervical SSEP between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TIVA technique, desflurane/remifentanil anesthesia caused more suppression in cortical SSEP, but not in cervical SSEP, at a comparable depth of anesthesia.
METHODS: H pylori-positive patients were randomly assigned to either a rabeparzole (Pariet) 20 mg b.i.d., amoxicillin (Ospamox) 1 g b.i.d. and clarithromycin (Klacid) 500 mg b.i.d. for 14 days or rabeprazole (Pariet) 20 mg q.i.d., amoxicillin (Ospamox) 1 g q.i.d. also for 14 days. Eradication was tested for by the C13 -UBT at least 4 weeks after the completion of therapy.
RESULTS: H pylori was eradicated in 86.2% of patients (81/94) (95% CI: 77.8-91.7) in the STT group compared with 92.8% (90/97) (95% CI: 85.9-96.5) in the HDDT group on ITT analysis. On PP analysis, H pylori was eradicated in 91.0% of patients (81/89) (95% CI: 83.3-95.4) in the STT group compared with 93.8% (90/96) (95% CI: 87.0-97.1) in the HDDT group. Side effects were few although many patients in the STT arm complained of bitter taste. The HDDT arm was well tolerated by patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The HDDT gave a high eradication rate comparable to the STT for 2 weeks and was a well-tolerated regimen for H pylori eradication.
METHODS: The HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration consisted of 12 cohorts from the United States and Europe of HIV-positive, ART-naive, AIDS-free individuals aged ≥18 years with baseline CD4 cell count and HIV RNA levels followed up from 1996 through 2007. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for cART versus no cART, adjusted for time-varying CD4 cell count and HIV RNA level via inverse probability weighting.
RESULTS: Of 65 121 individuals, 712 developed tuberculosis over 28 months of median follow-up (incidence, 3.0 cases per 1000 person-years). The HR for tuberculosis for cART versus no cART was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.72) overall, 1.04 (95% CI, 0.64-1.68) for individuals aged >50 years, and 1.46 (95% CI, 0.70-3.04) for people with a CD4 cell count of <50 cells/μL. Compared with people who had not started cART, HRs differed by time since cART initiation: 1.36 (95% CI, 0.98-1.89) for initiation <3 months ago and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.34-0.58) for initiation ≥3 months ago. Compared with people who had not initiated cART, HRs <3 months after cART initiation were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.38-1.18), 1.51 (95% CI, 0.98-2.31), and 3.20 (95% CI, 1.34-7.60) for people <35, 35-50, and >50 years old, respectively, and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.03-5.14) for people with a CD4 cell count of <50 cells/μL.
CONCLUSIONS: Tuberculosis incidence decreased after cART initiation but not among people >50 years old or with CD4 cell counts of <50 cells/μL. Despite an overall decrease in tuberculosis incidence, the increased rate during 3 months of ART suggests unmasking IRIS.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a five-year retrospective open cohort study using secondary data from the National Diabetes Registry. The study setting was all public health clinics (n = 47) in the state of Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Time to treatment intensification was defined as the number of years from the index year until the addition of another oral antidiabetic drug or initiation of insulin. Life table survival analysis based on best-worst case scenarios was used to determine the time to treatment intensification. Discrete-time proportional hazards model was fitted for the factors associated with treatment intensification.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration was 2.6 (SD 1.1) years. Of 7,646 patients, the median time to treatment intensification was 1.29 years (15.5 months), 1.58 years (19.0 months) and 2.32 years (27.8 months) under the best-, average- and worst-case scenarios respectively. The proportion of patients with treatment intensification was 45.4% (95% CI: 44.2-46.5), of which 34.6% occurred only after one year. Younger adults, overweight, obesity, use of antiplatelet medications and poorer HbA1c were positively associated with treatment intensification. Patients treated with more oral antidiabetics were less likely to have treatment intensification.
CONCLUSION: Clinical inertia is present in the management of T2D patients in Malaysian public health clinics. We recommend further studies in lower- and middle-income countries to explore its causes so that targeted strategies can be developed to address this issue.
Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed.
Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59–1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55–1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41–2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52–0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59–2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57–2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36–0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23–0.72]).
Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated.
Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.