RESUMEN
Background: Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a global problem in hospitals and significant causes of mortality and morbidity regardless of advances in supportive care, antimicrobial therapy and prevention. The study aimed to determine a comprehensive estimate of the HAIs prevalence, influential factors, and types of these infections in Iran. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the online databases; Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, SID, Magiran, and Medlib from January 1995 to September 2020 using a combination of medical subject heading terms ('Nosocomial infection [Mesh] OR '' Hospital infection [Mesh] OR Hospital Acquired Infection[Mesh] OR Healthcare-associated infection ''AND ('Iran' [Mesh]) among observational and interventional studies. SPSS version 25 and STATA version 11 were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 66 (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control) observational studies were identified. More of the studies had been done before 2014(43 papers or 65%). Based on the random-effects model, the overall prevalence of HAIs in Iran was 0.111 [95% CI: 0.105 - 0.116] with a high, statistically significant heterogeneity (I2= 99.9%). The infection rate was 0.157 and 0.089 before and after the Iranian Health Transformation Plan (HTP), respectively. HAIs rates reported more in the South and West of Iran rather than other regions (0.231 and 0.164) (p= 0.001). Escherichia coli and klebsiella infections were reported in 53 and 52 papers (0.239 and 0.180, respectively). In addition, respiratory and urinary infections were reported 0.296 and 0.286 in 51 and 38 papers, respectively. Conclusion: The prevalence of HAIs in Iran is relatively high. Preventing and decreasing hospital nosocomial infections can considerably affect reducing mortality and health-related costs. This should be taken into consideration by health policymakers for pathology and revision of some previous programs and standards as well as the development of appropriate and evidence-based control and education programs to reduce this health problem.
RESUMEN
COVID-19 patients in critical conditions are hospitalized and treated with various protocols including antiviral drugs, which have been updated repeatedly. This study was aimed to analyze the demographics, costs, and outcomes of drug regimens in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in "Ali Asghar" hospital, affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, from March 2019 to December 2020 as a retrospective study, approved by the ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR.SUMS.REC.1399.1003) on Dec. 28, 2020. Using hospital information system (HIS) data, 2174 patients receiving favipiravir, remdesivir, interferon-ß, and Kaletra® were analyzed. Descriptive, univariate, and regression analyses were used. The costs and consequences of different drug regimens were significantly different (P value < 0.05); the highest and lowest costs belonged to remdesivir and Kaletra®, respectively. The highest and lowest mean length of stay and mortality were related to remdesivir and favipiravir, respectively. Mortality did not differ significantly with various regimens. Length of stay was significantly shorter with favipiravir and Kaletra® than interferon-ß. Remdesivir had significantly the highest cost. Age presented a significantly positive relationship with mortality and length of stay. Besides, ICU admission significantly increased mortality, length of stay, and costs. Underlying diseases and low blood oxygen saturation contributed to mortality. COVID-19 correlation with age and underlying diseases is accordant with the published data. Given the highest costs and broad usage of remdesivir, besides controversies regarding its outcomes and side effects, a stricter evaluation of remdesivir benefits seems essential. Totally, COVID-19 therapeutic protocols should be selected carefully to optimize costs and outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Day case tonsillectomy compared with inpatient tonsillectomy has increasingly become a trend for many patients undergoing elective surgeries. Unjustified stays of tonsillectomy can be avoided by day case surgery, which consequently reduces treatment costs. The aim of this study was therefore to determine the cost and effectiveness of day case tonsillectomy compared with inpatient tonsillectomy. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness study was performed on 300 patients from May 2017 to April 2018. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: day case (n = 150) and inpatient (n = 150). Consequences used in model included incidence of bleeding, blood transfusion, and reoperation frequency within 2 weeks after surgery and also the patients' pain during 24 hours after surgery. Costs were collected from societal perspective, so the costs included direct medical and nonmedical costs as well as indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to measure the uncertainty effects of the parameters. The collected data were analyzed using software TreeAge and Excel 2016. RESULTS: Day case tonsillectomy was more cost-effective than inpatient. Mean total costs in day case and inpatient were $915.1 and $1227.9, respectively. Besides, the mean effectiveness was 0.921 and 0.914 percent, respectively. Also, 1-way sensitivity analysis proved the robustness of the results of study. CONCLUSIONS: Day case tonsillectomy is a cost-effective strategy and can be suggested as a good alternative for a wide range of patients after tonsillectomy. Supporting day case surgery for tonsillectomy cases can significantly reduce the financial burden.