Budesonide inhalado para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 / Inhaled budesonide for treating COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCCIÓN: En los primeros informes de China, Italia y Estados Unidos que describen a los pacientes con COVID-19 ingresados en el hospital, los pacientes con asma y enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) estaban significativamente sub-representados.3-6 Surgió entonces la hipótesis que esta subrepresentación de las primeras cohortes, podría deberse al uso generalizado de glucocorticoides inhalados en esta población. 7 El uso de glucocorticoides inhalados en pacientes con asma y EPOC tiene la finalidad de disminuir la inflamación de las vías aéreas y de este modo contribuir a reducir las exacerbaciones, que a menudo se deben a infecciones de origen viral. 8 Los estudios in vitro han demostrado que los glucocorticoides inhalados reducen la replicación de SARS-CoV-2 en las células epiteliales de las vías respiratorias, además de la regulación en menos de la expresión de los genera ACE2 y TMPRSS2, que son críticos para la entrada de células virales en este epitelio.9 Budesonide inhalado se encuentran ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) para la prevención de los síntomas respiratorios relacionados con la inflamación bronquial aguda o crónica. Se realizó una evaluación de tecnología sanitaria, basada en evidencia proveniente de revisiones sistemáticas vivas y guías de práctica clínica de alta calidad metodológica para brindar parámetros actualizados y balanceados que sean de utilidad para la toma de decisiones en los diferentes niveles de gestión. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del uso de esteroides inhalados para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Con este fin se utilizó la plataforma Love de Epistemonikos para identificar revisiones sistemáticas "vivas". Se seleccionaron aquellas con una calidad metodológica apropiada evaluada a través de la herramienta AMSTAR-2, y que a su vez llevaran un proceso de actualización frecuente.10 De cada una de las revisiones sistemáticas identificadas se extractaron los efectos de la intervención sobre los desenlaces priorizados como importantes o críticos separando los efectos del tratamiento sobre pacientes con COVID-19 (mortalidad, ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica, duración de estadía hospitalaria, tiempo a la resolución de síntomas o mejoría clínica al día 7-28 y eventos adversos graves) y la certeza en dichos efectos. Adicionalmente se extractaron datos relacionados a efectos de subgrupo potencialmente relevantes para la toma de decisión, con especial énfasis en el tiempo de evolución y la severidad de la enfermedad. Implementación: Este domino contempla dos subdominios: la existencia de barreras y facilitadores para la implementación de la tecnología evaluada no consideradas en los otros dominios analizados, y los costos comparativos en relación con otras intervenciones similares. Recomendaciones: se utilizó la plataforma COVID recmap. Se seleccionaron aquellas guías con rigor metodológico apropiado según la herramienta AGREE II (> 70%) y se incorporaron sus recomendaciones al informe. RESULTADOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se identificaron dos revisiones sistemáticas que cumplen con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe y que reportan sobre budesonide inhalado para pacientes con COVID-19. Se identificaron 2 ECA que incluyeron 1929 participantes en los que budesonide inhalado se comparó con la atención estándar u otros tratamientos. CONCLUSIONES: El cuerpo de evidencia disponible hasta el momento sugiere que budesonide inhalado podría mejorar el tiempo de resolución de los síntomas y disminuir las hospitalizaciones. Existe incertidumbre en el efecto de budesonide inhalado sobre la mortalidad, los efectos advsersos severos o el ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica. Budesonide inhalado se encuentran ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por ANMAT para el tratamiento de síntomas respiratorios relacionados con la inflamación bronquial aguda o crónica. Su costo comparativo es bajo y no se identificaron recomendaciones que aborden el uso de esteroides inhalados para el tratamiento de COVID-19.

Comparative analysis of medical expenditure with nebulized budesonide versus systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and is a leading cause of disability in China. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a leading cause of hospitalizations, and account for a substantial proportion of medical expenditure. Corticosteroids are commonly used to manage AECOPD in hospitalized patients, so our objective was to analyze the total medical expenditure associated with nebulized budesonide (nBUD) vs. systemic corticosteroids (SCS) in this population. Patients and methods: A post-hoc analysis was carried out in 1,577 and 973 patients diagnosed with COPD who had received "any" nBUD or SCS regimen for AECOPD during hospitalization, respectively. Regimens included monotherapy, sequential therapy, and sequential-combination therapy. Comparative total medical expenditure was analyzed using a generalized linear model controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, smoking history, and respiratory failure or pneumonia on admission. Results: The total medical expenditure per capita with any nBUD or SCS regimen was CN¥11,814 (US$1,922) and CN¥12,153 (US$1,977), respectively. Any nBUD regimen was associated with a significant saving of 5.1% in expenditure compared with any SCS regimen (P=0.0341). Comorbidities, Type II respiratory failure, or pneumonia were patient factors associated with higher total medical expenditure (P<0.0001). In a subgroup analysis of the patients who received monotherapy, total medical expenditure was CN¥10,900 (US$1,773) for nBUD and CN¥11,581 (US$1,884) for SCS; nBUD was associated with a significant saving of 8.7% in expenditure compared with SCS (P=0.0013). Similarly, in patients with respiratory failure, treatment with any nBUD regimen was associated with a 10.6% saving in expenditure over any SCS regimen (P=0.0239); however, the same comparison was not significant in patients without respiratory failure (3.4%; P=0.2299). Conclusion: AECOPD is a leading cause of hospitalization in China, which places substantial burden on the healthcare system. This post-hoc analysis suggests that nBUD regimens are associated with lower medical expenditure than SCS regimens in hospitalized patients with AECOPD, and may reduce the financial burden of COPD. However, prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of nBUD therapies are warranted.

A US database study characterizing patients initiating a budesonide-formoterol combination versus tiotropium bromide as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and demographic characteristics, resource utilization and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients prior to initiating budesonide-formoterol combination (BFC) or tiotropium-maintenance therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used claims-based diagnosis to identify COPD patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database who initiated BFC or tiotropium therapy between March 1, 2009 and January 31, 2012 (intake period); the index date was defined as the initial prescription fill for either agent. Patients diagnosed with respiratory tract cancer or receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonists or tiotropium in 12 months prior to index date were excluded. Categorical variables were evaluated with χ(2) tests; mean cost differences were evaluated using γ-regression. RESULTS: Overall, 6,940 BFC and 10,831 tiotropium patients were identified. The BFC group was younger (mean age 64 versus 67 years), with a greater proportion of females (54% versus 51%). BFC-treated patients had more comorbid respiratory conditions, including asthma (25% versus 13%), but fewer comorbid cardiovascular conditions, including atherosclerosis (7% versus 10%) and myocardial infarction (4% versus 6%). A greater proportion of BFC patients received prior respiratory medication, including oral corticosteroids (46% versus 35%) and short-acting ß2-agonists (44% versus 35%). Tiotropium-treated patients had a greater mean number of COPD-related outpatient visits (4.6 versus 4.1). BFC-treated patients had lower total all-cause ($17,259 versus $17,926) and COPD-related ($1,718 versus $1,930) health care costs, driven by lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient expenditures. CONCLUSION: Initiators of BFC or tiotropium showed differences in clinical and demographic characteristics and health care utilization and costs prior to starting COPD maintenance therapy.

Do patients consider postoperative maintenance therapy for Crohn's disease worthwhile?

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making for postoperative Crohn's disease is complex because of the increasing number of maintenance therapies available with competing risk-benefit profiles. The main objective of this study was to determine the distribution of patients' preferences for selected postoperative maintenance therapies. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional survey in which patients with Crohn's disease completed a standardized interview. Each participant completed 5 tasks that compared: (1) no medication and 5-ASA, (2) fish oil and 5-ASA, (3) metronidazole and 5-ASA, (4) budesonide and 5-ASA, and (5) azathioprine and 5-ASA. For each task, the minimum change in treatment effect size between the 2 treatments that the participant considered worthwhile was determined. RESULTS: The distribution of the participants' preference scores varied widely for each task. When fish oil, metronidazole, budesonide, and azathioprine were considered equally effective to 5-ASA, 92.9%, 28.8%, 38.4%, and 19% of the participants, respectively, preferred these medications relative to 5-ASA. These percentages increased to 98.4%, 54.8%, 61.9%, and 50.8%, respectively, when fish oil, metronidazole, budesonide, and azathioprine were considered to offer a 5% absolute risk reduction relative to 5-ASA. Regression analysis did not identify any clinical or demographic variables predictive of the participants' treatment preferences. CONCLUSIONS: The participants' preferences for postoperative maintenance therapies were widely distributed, and no clinical or demographic factors predicted these preferences. This emphasizes the need for effective communication between physician and patient in order to select the treatment options most consistent with a patient's informed preferences.

Cost effectiveness of nasal budesonide versus surgical treatment for nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness study of nasal budesonide versus surgical treatment in the management of nasal polyps. DESIGN AND METHODS: A decision-tree model reflecting two different treatment strategies for nasal polyps in Sweden was developed. The first strategy was initial polypectomy, performed under three different sets of circumstances: inpatient functional endoscopic surgery, outpatient evulsion with sedation, or outpatient evulsion with local anaesthesia; all treatments were followed by intranasal treatment with budesonide (Rhinocort) 128 microg twice daily. The second strategy was initial intranasal treatment with budesonide 128 microg twice daily. PERSPECTIVE: Healthcare provider perspective. OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: After 1 month, treatment with nasal budesonide was classified as a success (82.5%) or a failure (17.5%) based on clinical study data. In cases of success, the treatment was continued, and in cases of failure, polypectomy was undertaken, followed by budesonide 128 microg twice daily. Treatments were evaluated after 4 months using prices from the Central Hospital in Skövde, Sweden. The expected reduction in cost from using initial nasal budesonide treatment compared with the different alternatives of polypectomy were 9760 Swedish kronors (SEK) for inpatient functional endoscopic surgery, SEK2747 for outpatient evulsion with sedation, and SEK672 for outpatient evulsion with anaesthesia (1998 values). Nasal budesonide 128 microg twice daily treatment for nasal polyps revealed a potential reduction in costs of 53% compared with the primary surgery approach. CONCLUSION: Initial treatment of nasal polyps with nasal budesonide provides lower costs than treatment with initial polypectomy with maintained effectiveness.

[Measurement of outpatient treatment costs of chronic inflammatory bowel diseases at a German university hospital]. / Messung der ambulanten Behandlungskosten von chronisch entzündlichen Darmerkrankungen an einer deutschen Universitätsklinik.

OBJECTIVE: To create a concept for measuring and valuating resource utilization of outpatient treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease in a German university hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The measurement of health services was achieved using a computer-based routinely administered data base of the Medical Department. Measuring costs was performed in three steps: 1. identification of the categories of resource utilization, 2. quantitative measurement of resource use, 3. monetary valuation of the utilization of resources using German fee schedules and prices for drugs. RESULTS: The resource utilization of 272 patients with a treatment period of more than 1 year could be identified in a structured form. Categories of resource use could be identified and quantitatively measured as follows: anamnesis and physical examination by a physician in 100% of the visits, laboratory tests in 87.1%, endoscopic or sonographic services in 36.9%, and radiologic procedures in 14.1%. In 93.6% of the visits a medication was prescribed. Annual costs of outpatient care provided by the hospital were 3,171 [symbol: see text] per patient. Medication accounted for 85% of total costs. Analyzing the costs of medical treatment, mesalazine was the major cost component (48%), followed by budesonide (15%). CONCLUSION: The presented concept offers a good access to measure costs of outpatient treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. It is suitable for measuring costs in the economic evaluation of alternative treatments or diagnostic strategies in an outpatient setting. It furthermore may be used as a component in cost-of-illness studies. For transferring the concept to other hospitals, the availability of a routine documentation of services should be checked. For economic analysis, a further data management is required.