RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nodularity in thyroid tissue is extremely common. In Mexico, the only openly available treatment for benign cold thyroid nodules that cause compressive or cosmetic symptoms is surgery. This limitation in the availability of non-invasive treatments places an enormous strain on the State's health resources. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the cost-minimization of percutaneous ethanol injection treatment (PEIT) against radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laser ablation for the treatment of benign solid thyroid nodules. METHOD: Prospective, comparative, quasi-experimental, longitudinal study with external controls, non-randomized, historical, prolective and open. The significant difference in volume reduction was calculated by paired 2-tailed t-test. Validation was made to prove that the reduction in the final nodule volume was non-inferior to the gold standard. The cost-analysis study was carried out using the Montecarlo method. RESULTS: 15 patients entered the study. The mean volume of the nodules was 14.46 ± 19 cc, with a final mean volume of 5.24 ± 8.44 cc, the average reduction percentage was 63 ± 17%. The cost per procedure was $ 18,807 mx, $ 16,300 mx, $ 9,248 mx and $ 1,615 for RFA, surgery, laser ablation and PEIT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrate the non-inferiority of the ablation of benign solid thyroid nodules with PEIT compared to laser and RFA, at a lower cost.
ANTECEDENTES: La nodularidad en el tejido tiroideo es extremadamente común. En México, el único tratamiento disponible abiertamente para los nódulos tiroideos fríos benignos que causan síntomas compresivos o estéticos es la cirugía. Esta limitante en la disponibilidad de tratamientos no invasivos pone una enorme demanda sobre los recursos de salud del Estado. OBJETIVO: Demostrar el costo-minimización del tratamiento por inyección percutánea con etanol (PEIT, percutaneous etanol injection treatment) contra la ablación por radiofrecuencia (RFA, radiofrequency ablation) y el rayo láser para el tratamiento de nódulos tiroideos sólidos benignos. MÉTODO: Estudio prospectivo, comparativo, cuasiexperimental, longitudinal, con controles externos, no aleatorizado, histórico, prolectivo y abierto. La diferencia significativa en la reducción de volumen se calculó mediante prueba t pareada a dos colas. Se validó que el porcentaje de reducción en el volumen final fue tan eficiente como el método de referencia. El estudio de análisis de costos se realizó utilizando el método de Montecarlo. RESULTADOS: Ingresaron al estudio 15 pacientes. El volumen medio de los nódulos fue de 14.46 ± 19 cc, con un volumen medio final de 5.24 ± 8.44 cc. El porcentaje de reducción medio fue del 63 ± 17%. El costo por procedimiento fue de $18,807 mx para la RFA, $16,300 mx para la cirugía, $9248 mx para la ablación láser y $1615 mx para el PEIT. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados del estudio demuestran la no inferioridad de la ablación de nódulos tiroideos sólidos benignos con PEIT en comparación con el rayo láser y la RFA, a un costo inferior.
Asunto(s)
Nódulo Tiroideo , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Estudios Prospectivos , Nódulo Tiroideo/cirugía , México , EtanolRESUMEN
AIMS: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a growing chronic disease. Evidence of whether the healthcare setting affects management and glycemic control is scarce. We evaluate outcomes in patients with T1D in private and public healthcare settings in Mexico, registered in the National T1D Registry in Mexico (RENACED-DT1). METHODS: Biochemical parameters, diabetes education, and treatment were analyzed considering the data registered in the last visit. Development of chronic complications was determined during follow-up. RESULTS: We included 1,603 patients; 71.5% (n = 1,146) registered in the public system, and 28.5% (n = 457) in a private institution. Patients in the public setting had higher HbA1c (8.6%, IQR: 7.3%-10.5% vs 7.7%, IQR: 7.0%-8.8%; p < 0.001). Indicators of diabetes education, glucose monitoring, and use of insulin-pumps were lower in the public setting. Patients in the public setting were at higher risk of diabetic chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Diabetes knowledge was a mediator between type of healthcare setting and the likelihood of achieving glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Patients registered in public healthcare settings have an adverse metabolic profile and higher risk of complications. Social factors need to be addressed in order to implement multidisciplinary measures focused on diabetes education for patients with T1D in Mexico.