Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Support Care Cancer ; 26(6): 2031-2038, 2018 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29349622

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The decision to prescribe packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) includes assessment of clinical features such as the patient's cancer type and treatment regimen, severity of anemia symptoms, and presence of comorbidities. We examined contemporary transfusion practices in patients with nonmyeloid cancer and CIA. METHODS: Key inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with nonmyeloid cancer, receiving first/second-line myelosuppressive chemotherapy, baseline hemoglobin (Hb) ≤ 10.0 g/dL, and planned to receive ≥ 1 PRBC transfusions. Exclusion criteria were receipt of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents within 8 weeks of screening and/or chronic renal insufficiency. Data were collected from patients' medical records, laboratory values, and physician/provider questionnaires. Proportion of patients for each clinical consideration leading to a decision to prescribe a PRBC transfusion and 95% exact binomial confidence intervals were determined. RESULTS: The study enrolled 154 patients at 18 sites in USA; 147 (95.5%) received a PRBC transfusion. Fatigue was the most common symptom affecting the decision to prescribe a PRBC transfusion (101 [69.2%] patients). Of the three reasons selected as primary considerations for prescribing a PRBC transfusion, anemia symptoms (106 [72.1%] patients) was the most frequently reported, followed by Hb value (37 [25.2%] patients) and medical history (4 [2.7%] patients). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the primary consideration for prescribing a PRBC transfusion was anemia symptoms in 72.1% of patients, with only 25.2% of patients prescribed a transfusion based exclusively on Hb value. Results indicate that clinical judgment and patient symptoms, not just Hb value, were used in decisions to prescribe PRBC transfusions.


Assuntos
Anemia/tratamento farmacológico , Transfusão de Sangue/métodos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias/complicações , Neoplasias/patologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 78(3): 255-62, 2014 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24360267

RESUMO

The percentage of isolates resistant to essential antibiotics among clinically significant bacterial pathogens was evaluated using data from 80089 qualifying admissions in 19 US hospitals (2007-2010). Percentage resistant was highest for the following pathogen/antibiotic pairs: Enterococcus faecium/vancomycin (87.1% [95% CI 86.0-88.1] of 4024 isolates), Staphylococcus aureus/oxacillin-methicillin (56.8% [56.1-57.4] of 23477 isolates), S. aureus/clindamycin (39.7% [39.1-40.4] of 21133 isolates), Pseudomonas aeruginosa/fluoroquinolones (32.6% [31.8-33.5] of 10982 isolates), and Escherichia coli/fluoroquinolones (31.3% [30.8-31.8] of 30715 isolates). The percentage resistant was 3.9% (3.2-4.9) for E. faecium/daptomycin (n = 2029 isolates). While these results are consistent with those from earlier studies in many respects, the percentage of E. faecium isolates resistant to daptomycin, while still small, is higher than has been reported to date.


Assuntos
Farmacorresistência Bacteriana Múltipla , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/epidemiologia , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Positivas/epidemiologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Enterococcus faecium/efeitos dos fármacos , Escherichia coli/efeitos dos fármacos , Feminino , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Negativas/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Bactérias Gram-Positivas/tratamento farmacológico , Hospitais , Humanos , Masculino , Testes de Sensibilidade Microbiana , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , Pseudomonas aeruginosa/efeitos dos fármacos , Staphylococcus aureus/efeitos dos fármacos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
3.
BMC Cancer ; 13: 11, 2013 Jan 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23298389

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Myelosuppressive chemotherapy can lead to dose-limiting febrile neutropenia. Prophylactic use of recombinant human G-CSF such as daily filgrastim and once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim may reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia. This comparative study examined the effect of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim on the risk of hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective United States claims analysis utilized 2004-2009 data for filgrastim- and pegfilgrastim-treated patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast, lung, ovarian, or colorectal cancers. Cycles in which pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was administered within 5 days from initiation of chemotherapy (considered to represent prophylaxis) were pooled for analysis. Neutropenia-related hospitalization and other healthcare encounters were defined with a "narrow" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia and with a "broad" criterion for claims with an ICD-9 code for neutropenia, fever, or infection. Odds ratios (OR) for hospitalization and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by generalized estimating equation (GEE) models and adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Per-cycle healthcare utilization and costs were examined for cycles with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis. RESULTS: We identified 3,535 patients receiving G-CSF prophylaxis, representing 12,056 chemotherapy cycles (11,683 pegfilgrastim, 373 filgrastim). The mean duration of filgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 4.8 days. The mean duration of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in the sample was 1.0 day, consistent with the recommended dosage of pegfilgrastim - a single injection once per chemotherapy cycle. Cycles with prophylactic pegfilgrastim were associated with a decreased risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization (narrow definition: OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16-1.13; broad definition: OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.59) and all-cause hospitalization (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) versus cycles with prophylactic filgrastim. For neutropenia-related utilization by setting of care, there were more ambulatory visits and hospitalizations per cycle associated with filgrastim prophylaxis than with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. Mean per-cycle neutropenia-related costs were also higher with prophylactic filgrastim than with prophylactic pegfilgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative effectiveness study, pegfilgrastim prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia-related or all-cause hospitalization relative to filgrastim prophylaxis.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos/administração & dosagem , Hospitalização , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Neutropenia/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Idoso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Esquema de Medicação , Custos de Medicamentos , Feminino , Filgrastim , Fator Estimulador de Colônias de Granulócitos/economia , Custos Hospitalares , Hospitalização/economia , Humanos , Seguro de Serviços Farmacêuticos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias/economia , Neutropenia/induzido quimicamente , Neutropenia/economia , Razão de Chances , Polietilenoglicóis , Proteínas Recombinantes/administração & dosagem , Proteínas Recombinantes/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos
4.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 48(12): 2440-7, 2006 Dec 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17174180

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This trial examined the relative clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes, and safety of zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents (ZES) with a phosphorylcholine polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). BACKGROUND: Whether a cobalt-based alloy stent coated with the novel antiproliferative agent, zotarolimus, and a phosphorylcholine polymer may provide similar angiographic and clinical benefit compared with SES is undetermined. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, 3:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ZES (n = 323) relative to SES (n = 113) in 436 patients undergoing elective percutaneous revascularization of de novo native coronary lesions with reference vessel diameters between 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm and lesion length > or =14 mm and < or =27 mm. The primary end point was 8-month angiographic in-segment late lumen loss. RESULTS: Angiographic in-segment late lumen loss was significantly higher among patients treated with ZES compared with SES (0.34 +/- 0.44 mm vs. 0.13 +/- 0.32 mm, respectively; p < 0.001). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events were significantly lower among patients treated with ZES (0.6% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.04). In-segment binary angiographic restenosis was also higher in the ZES cohort (11.7% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.04). Total (clinically and non-clinically driven) target lesion revascularization rates at 9 months were 9.8% and 3.5% for the ZES and SES groups, respectively (p = 0.04). However, neither clinically driven target lesion revascularization (6.3% zotarolimus vs. 3.5% sirolimus, p = 0.34) nor target vessel failure (12.0% zotarolimus vs. 11.5% sirolimus, p = 1.0) differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SES, treatment with a phosphorylcholine polymer-based ZES is associated with significantly higher late lumen loss and binary restenosis at 8-month angiographic follow-up. (The Endeavor III CR; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00265668?order=1?).


Assuntos
Estenose Coronária/tratamento farmacológico , Imunossupressores/administração & dosagem , Sirolimo/análogos & derivados , Sirolimo/administração & dosagem , Stents , Idoso , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA