Search

Summary Background & aims COVID-19 patients present a high hospitalization rate with a high mortality risk for those requiring intensive care. When these patients have other comorbid conditions and older age, the risk for severe disease and poor outcomes after ICU admission are increased. The present work aims to describe the preliminary results of the ongoing NUTRICOVID study about the nutritional and functional status and the quality of life of adult COVID-19 survivors after ICU discharge, emphasizing the in-hospital and discharge situation of this population. Methods A multicenter, ambispective, observational cohort study was conducted in 16 public hospitals of the Community of Madrid with COVID-19 survivors who were admitted to the ICU during the first outbreak. Preliminary results of this study include data retrospectively collected. Malnutrition and sarcopenia were screened at discharge using MUST and SARC-F; the use of healthcare resources was measured as the length of hospital stay and requirement of respiratory support and tracheostomy during hospitalization; other study variables were the need for medical nutritional treatment; and patients’ functional status (Barthel index) and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Results A total of 176 patients were included in this preliminary analysis. Most patients were male and older than 60 years, who suffered an average (SD) weight loss of 16.6% (8.3%) during the hospital stay, with a median length of stay of 53 (27–89.5) days and a median ICU stay of 24.5 (11–43.5) days. At discharge, 83.5% and 86.9% of the patients were at risk of malnutrition and sarcopenia, respectively, but only 38% were prescribed medical nutrition therapy. In addition, more than 70% of patients had significant impairment of their mobility and to conduct their usual activities at hospital discharge. Conclusions This preliminary analysis evidences the high nutritional and functional impairment of COVID-19 survivors at hospital discharge and highlights the need for guidelines and systematic protocols, together with appropriate rehabilitation programs, to optimize the nutritional management of these patients after discharge.

Objectives To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. Methods A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150 mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40 mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300 mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. Results Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150 mg was 18–33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40 mg, for ACR20, 18–28% for ACR50, and 16–23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40–60%, 40–65% and 50–75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. Conclusion In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

Studies in patients with dyslipidemia have revealed that, despite guideline recommendations, treatment remains unchanged even when therapeutic goals are not achieved. Our objective was to determine the degree to which primary care (PC) and specialty care (SC) physicians adhere to clinical guidelines for the management of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD). This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. Physicians working in the Spanish Health System completed an electronic questionnaire comprising 24 items organized into three blocks: clinical guidelines, adherence to clinical guidelines, and other issues in the management of AD. The questions were formulated with closed polytomous or categorized responses. Adherence to guidelines, in terms of treatment, was assessed according to physicians’ responses to six patient profiles. Absolute and relative frequencies (qualitative variables), central tendency and dispersion (quantitative variables) were calculated. In total, 980 physicians (88.5% PC) participated in the study; 77.3% used guidelines in their routine clinical practice, with the most used being the Spanish SEMERGEN (73.8%) and the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines (41.2%). A total of 83% adhered to guideline recommendations in more than four of the six profiles proposed, 26.2% adhered to the SEMERGEN definition of AD, 66.6% combined all lipoprotein ratios to diagnose AD, and > 60% used non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) to diagnose patients with AD at high cardiovascular risk. In total, 99.0% prescribed a fibrate to reduce triglyceride levels, 47.4% to increase HDL-C levels and 40.2% to reduce small, dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol particles. Since adherence to clinical guidelines improves both the quality of care and health outcomes, greater adherence to and satisfaction with clinical guidelines for the management of AD may contribute to improvements in and optimization of the management of patients with AD in the Spanish health system.

Introduction Recommendations on chronic diseases management emphasise the need to consider patient perspectives and shared decision-making. Discrepancies between patients and physicians’ perspectives on treatment objectives, disease activity, preferences and treatment have been described for immune-mediate inflammatory diseases. These differences could result on patient dissatisfaction and negatively affect outcomes. Objective To describe the degree of patient-physician discrepancy in three chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] and psoriasis [Ps]), identifying the main areas of discrepancy and possible predictor factors. Methods Qualitative systematic review of the available literature on patient and physician discrepancies in the management of RA, PsA and Ps. The search was performed in international (Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI-WOK) and Spanish electronic databases (MEDES, IBECS), including papers published from April 1, 2008 to April 1, 2018, in English or Spanish, and conducted in European or North American populations. Study quality was assessed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. Results A total of 21 studies were included (13 RA; 3 PsA; 4 Ps; 1 RA, Ps, and Axial Spondyloarthritis). A significant and heterogeneous degree of discrepancy between patients and physicians was found, regarding disease activity, treatment, clinical expectations, remission concept, and patient-physician relationship. In RA and PsA, studies were mainly focused on the evaluation of disease activity, which is perceived as higher from the patient’s than the physician’s perspective, with the discrepancy determined by factors such as patient’s perception of pain and fatigue. In Ps, studies were focused on treatment satisfaction and patient-physician relationship, showing a lower degree of discrepancy in the satisfaction regarding these aspects. Conclusions There is a significant degree of patient-physician discrepancy regarding the management of RA, PA, and Ps, what can have a major impact on shared decision-making. Future research may help to show whether interventions considering discrepancy improve shared decision-making.

Management of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is complex due to their age-related conditions. Several clinical guidelines provide specific recommendations for management of these patients but little is known about their implementation in clinical practice. To describe physician and community pharmacist perceptions and routine clinical practice in the management of elderly T2DM patients. Cross-sectional study. A total of 993 physicians and 999 community pharmacists completed the questionnaire. More physicians than pharmacists agreed on the need to establish more flexible HbA1c targets for elderly (79.4% vs. 30.6%; p

Elena Labrador Barba,1 Marta Rodríguez de Miguel,1 Antonio Hernández-Mijares,2,3 Francisco Javier Alonso-Moreno,4 Maria Luisa Orera Peña,1 Susana Aceituno,5 María José Faus Dader6 1Department of Medicine, Mylan, Madrid, 2Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Doctor Peset University Hospital, Valencia, 3Department of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, 4Department for Primary Health Care, Centro de Salud Sillería, Toledo, 5Outcomes’10, Castellon, 6Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Granada, Spain Objective: A good relationship between diabetes patients and their health care team is crucial to ensure patients’ medication adherence and self-management. To this end, we aimed to identify and compare the views of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, physicians and pharmacists concerning the factors and strategies that may be associated with, or could improve, medication adherence and persistence.Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronic self-administered questionnaire comprising 11 questions (5-point Likert scale) concerning factors and strategies related to medication adherence. The survey was designed for T2DM patients and Spanish National Health System professionals.Results: A total of 963 T2DM patients, 998 physicians and 419 pharmacists participated in the study. Overall, a lower proportion of pharmacists considered the proposed factors associated with medication adherence important as compared to patients and physicians. It should be noted that a higher percentage of physicians in comparison to pharmacists perceived that “complexity of medication” (97% vs 76.6%, respectively) and “adverse events” (97.5% vs 72.2%, respectively) were important medication-related factors affecting adherence. In addition, both patients (80.8%) and physicians (80.8%) agreed on the importance of “cost and co-payment” for adherence, whereas only 48.6% of pharmacists considered this factor important. It is also noteworthy that nearly half of patients (43%) agreed that “to adjust medication to activities of daily living” was the best strategy to reduce therapeutic complexity, whereas physicians believed that “reducing the frequency of administration” (47.9%) followed by “reducing the number of tablets” (28.5%) was the most effective strategy to improve patients’ adherence.Conclusion: Our results highlight the need for pharmacists to build a stronger relationship with physicians in order to improve patients monitoring and adherence rates. Additionally, these findings may help to incorporate greater patient-centeredness when developing management strategies, focusing on adjusting medication regimens to patients’ daily lives. Keywords: type 2 diabetes mellitus, adherence, persistence, factors, strategies&nbsp

BACKGROUND Multiple myeloma is a hematologic malignancy affecting bone marrow derived plasma cells. Current therapies are not able to eradicate the disease and most patients become refractory to the treatment. Lenalidomide and bortezomib have proved effective in the second-line treatment of these patients. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone compared to bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma previously treated with bortezomib, from the perspective of the Chilean National Health Service. METHODOLOGY A four-state Markov model (preprogression on treatment; preprogression off treatment, progression and death) was used to simulate the evolution of a cohort of multiple myeloma patients over a 25-year time horizon. Efficacy data, resource use and frequency of adverse events were extracted from MM009/010 studies and a retrospective analysis of retreatment with bortezomib. All inputs were validated by experts. A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and health outcomes. The robustness of the results was evaluated through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone treatment provided 1.41 incremental life years and 0.83 incremental quality-adjusted life years in comparison with bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone, with an incremental cost of 11 864 597.86 CLP (19 589.86 US$). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio were estimated at 8 410 266.92 CLP (13 886,35 US$) / incremental life year and 14 271 896.16 CLP (23 564,59 US$)/incremental quality-adjusted life years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Lenalidomide in combination with dexamethasone represents a potentially cost-effective alternative for the second-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for transplantation, from the perspective of the Chilean National Health Service. CONTEXTO El mieloma múltiple es una neoplasia de las células plasmáticas de la medula ósea. Las terapias disponibles no son curativas y la mayoría de los pacientes se vuelve refractario al tratamiento. Agentes como lenalidomida y bortezomib han demostrado su eficacia en el tratamien-to en segunda línea de estos pacientes. OBJETIVO Evaluar el costo-efectividad de la combinación lenalidomida/dexametasona frente a bortezomib/dexametasona en pacientes con mieloma múltiple, no candidatos a trasplante, previamente tratados con bortezomib, desde la perspectiva del sistema nacional de salud chileno. METODOLOGÍA Se empleó un modelo de Markov que simula la evolución de una cohorte de pacientes a través de cuatro estados de salud (preprogresión en tratamiento, preprogresión sin tratamiento, progresión o muerte) en un horizonte temporal de 25 años. Los datos de eficacia, uso de recursos y frecuencia de efectos adversos fueron extraídos de los ensayos sobre mieloma múltiple MM-009 y MM-010 y de un estudio retrospectivo de retratamiento con bortezomib. Todos los parámetros fueron validados por expertos. Se aplicó una tasa de descuento en costos y beneficios de 3%. La robustez de los resultados fue evaluada mediante un análisis de sensibilidad univariante y probabilístico. RESULTADOS El tratamiento con lenalidomida/dexametasona proporciona 1,41 años de vida y 0,83 años de vida ajustados por calidad incrementales respecto a bortezomib/dexametasona, con un costo incremental de 11 864 597,86 pesos chilenos (19 589,86 dólares). La ratio de cos-to-efectividad y costo-utilidad incremental se cifró en 8 410 266,92 pesos chilenos (13 886,35 dólares) por año de vida ganado y 14 271 896,16 pesos chilenos (23 564,59 dólares) por año de vida ajustado por calidad respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN La lenalidomida/dexametasona representa una alternativa potencialmente costo-efectiva, desde la perspectiva del sistema nacional de salud chileno, para el tratamiento en segunda línea de pacientes con mieloma múltiple no candidatos a trasplante.