Economic Evaluation of Clinical, Nutritional and Rehabilitation Interventions on Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Stroke: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke oropharyngeal dysphagia (PS-OD) and its complications increase healthcare costs, suggesting that its appropriate management is cost-effective. We aimed to assess the efficiency of healthcare interventions in PS-OD management. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA recommendations. Four databases were searched from inception through 30 June 2021. Outcome measures were cost-effectiveness and cost-savings of healthcare interventions. English and Spanish literature were included. Narrative and tables were used to present and synthesise evidence. Quality was evaluated using the CHEERS Statement. RESULTS: A total of 244 studies were identified, and 10 were included. Screening and diagnosis of PS-OD studies found: (1) adjusted reduction in hospitalisation costs when assessed during the first admission day; (2) non-significant reduction in hospitalisation costs with OD management after thrombolysis; and (3) videofluoroscopy as the most cost-effective screening method (compared to bedside evaluation and a combination of both). Two studies showed cost-effective rehabilitation programmes, including OD management. Pelczarska et al. showed an incremental cost-utility ratio of texture-modified diets using a gum-based thickener of 20,977 PLN (4660€) following a dynamic model, and Kotecki et al. commercially prepared thickened fluids that were 44% to 59% less expensive than in situ prepared fluids. Elia et al. showed home enteral nutrition was cost-effective (£12,817/QALY), and Beavan et al. showed higher nutrient intake and low increase in hospitalisation costs using looped-nasogastric tubes (£5.20 for every 1% increase). Heterogeneity between studies precluded a quantitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Included studies suggest that healthcare interventions aiming to prevent OD complications are cost-effective. However, studies assessing novel strategies are needed.

Real-world effectiveness and durability of dual antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While randomised controlled trials in HIV-infected patients have shown that certain dual antiretroviral therapy (DAT) regimens are non-inferior in terms of efficacy compared with classical triple-drug regimens, few real clinical experiences have been described. The aim of the study was to investigate, in real clinical practice, DAT effectiveness, durability, and risk factors for treatment discontinuation. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included HIV-infected patients treated with DAT (2015-2020). DAT was considered effective when patients achieved or maintained virological suppression and was assessed at 24 and 48 weeks. DAT durability was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Adherence and treatment cost were compared with patients' previous antiretroviral regimens. RESULTS: 51 patients were included, 27.5% with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at baseline, treated with a wide range of dual combinations. At 48 weeks follow-up, 83.8% and 50.0% of patients who started DAT with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and ≥50 copies/mL, respectively, were suppressed. 39 out of 51 patients (76.5%) maintained DAT for a mean treatment duration of 40.5±14.8 weeks. Full adherence was observed in 78.4% of patients compared with 70.2% in the previous regimen. Mean daily cost was €18.6±4.3 compared with €16.1±7.9 in the previous regimen (p=0.008). CONCLUSION: DAT effectiveness and durability were higher in patients who were virologically suppressed at baseline. DAT is a possible alternative for virologically non-suppressed patients who cannot be treated with a triple-drug regimen.

[Recommendations for using oral antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents in oncohematology by enteral tube administration]. / Recomendaciones para la administración de antineoplásicos e inmunomoduladores orales por sonda enteral en oncohematología.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction and objective: in recent years, the number of oral antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs in oncohematology has increased enormously. Often, these drugs must be administered to patients with enteral tube feeding or swallowing disorders, which causes safety problems when handling these drugs (many of them are classified as hazardous drugs). In addition, it is important to note that the administration of these drugs can also interact with enteral nutrition (EN). The objective of this study was to review and update the recommendations for the administration and handling of oral antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs. Methods: a Working Group made up of pharmacists from the Pharmacy Group of The Spanish Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (SENPE) and the Clinical Nutrition Group of The Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) was created. A bibliographic review was carried out between 2015 and 2020 on the administration and handling of oral antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs in oncohematology. The information about pharmaceutical specialties, dosage, presentation, brand names, instructions for oral or enteral tube administration, interactions with EN, precautions, and remarks for handling and administration was analyzed. Results: a total of 77 active principles and 84 pharmaceutical forms were included. Recommendations and instructions for oral, nasogastric tube, and gastrostomy administration, handling of the antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs, and interactions with EN were described. Conclusions: the handling and administration information about the oral antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs currently used in oncohematology for people with enteral accesses or swallowing disorders is limited. It is important to perform post-marketing studies to ensure a safe and effective administration of these drugs.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Introducción y objetivo: en los últimos años, el número de fármacos antineoplásicos e inmunomoduladores orales (ANIO) ha crecido enormemente. Con frecuencia, estos fármacos deben administrarse por sonda enteral (SE) o a pacientes con problemas de deglución, planteando un problema respecto a su manipulación (muchos pertenecen al grupo de medicamentos peligrosos). Además, también pueden presentar interacciones cuando se administran con la nutrición enteral (NE). El objetivo ha sido analizar y actualizar las recomendaciones de administración y manipulación de los ANIO. Métodos: se creó un Grupo de Trabajo formado por farmacéuticos del Grupo de Farmacia de la Sociedad Española de Nutrición Clínica y Metabolismo (SENPE) y del Grupo de Nutrición Clínica de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (SEFH). Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica entre 2015 y 2020 de las condiciones de manipulación y administración de los ANIO en oncohematología, elaborando una tabla que recoge especialidades farmacéuticas, dosis, presentación, nombre comercial, instrucciones para la administración oral y por SE, interacciones con la NE, precauciones y observaciones para su manipulación y administración. Resultados: se elaboró una tabla con 77 principios activos y 84 formas farmacéuticas, recogiendo recomendaciones e instrucciones para su administración por vía oral, sonda nasogástrica y gastrostomía, para la correcta manipulación y para la administración junto a la NE. Conclusiones: la información sobre cómo administrar y manipular los ANIO en personas con accesos enterales o problemas de deglución es escasa. Consideramos importante incluir en los estudios poscomercialización una investigación dirigida a responder a estas cuestiones para garantizar una administración segura y eficaz de los medicamentos a estos pacientes.

Cost-minimisation analysis of rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy based on fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil).

OBJECTIVES: The current standard treatment for patients with rectal cancer stage II-III is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy can be performed with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine (CPC) considered to be equivalent therapies. Medication cost is higher for CPC than for 5-FU, however, the administration of continuous 5-FU intravenous infusion is related to other costs such as those associated with outpatient facilities or central venous catheter insertion. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed the direct sanitary costs associated with the treatments and their complications from a hospital perspective. Costs in patients treated with 5-FU or CPC were measured between January 2010 and July 2018 at Mataró Hospital. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-minimisation analysis between the two treatments. We aimed to assess the cost associated with the complications related to each drug and the economic impact of applying the most efficient option. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were analysed: 32 were treated with CPC and 66 with 5-FU. Treatment cost was significantly higher for 5-FU than for CPC (2560.86±99.17 and 563.10±9.52 respectively, P=0.0001). No significant differences were found in the costs associated with treatment complications between groups (148.21±934.91 and 41.41±102.50 euros respectively, P=0.322). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the clinical equivalence shown in the available trials and previous reviews, the most efficient treatment is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with CPC. Complications associated with the treatments did not significantly modify these results. Other studies gave similar results both in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant context, reaffirmed in this study.