Needs of adolescents and young adults after cancer treatment: a systematic review.

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the needs of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) who have survived cancer. PRISMA recommendations for systematic reviews were followed, and the quality of the studies reviewed was also assessed with a specific checklist. The following databases were searched from their inception to May 2016: ERIC, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PILOTS, ProQuest, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, psycCRITIQUES, PsycINFO, Social Services Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts. Fourteen studies were identified and analysed. The results show that the most common needs for AYA cancer survivors are as follows: "individualised information and advice," "counselling and psychological support" and "social support, and social relationships." These results are different from those reported in studies on adults, which shows the importance of specifically addressing the needs of this population. In order to advance in this emerging area of study and facilitate the work of health professionals, it is crucial to reach a consensus on two central issues: how the needs of AYA survivors should be conceptualised and what the most valid and reliable procedure for assessing patient's needs is.

What are the needs of adolescents and young adults after a cancer treatment? A Delphi study.

Advances in the early detection of cancer and the development of more effective treatments have resulted in a larger number of adolescents and young adults (AYAs), becoming cancer survivors. However, knowledge regarding their needs and if those needs are adequately addressed remains limited. The aims of this study were to: (1) better understand the needs of AYAs after cancer treatment; (2) analyse the importance of those needs; (3) determine which needs are not adequately addressed; and (4) test the hypothesis that AYA cancer survivors have different needs than adult survivors. Twenty-nine health oncology professionals, 17 AYA survivors and 12 relatives of AYA survivors participated in the Delphi study. The needs identified could be classified into six categories, and all were rated as highly important by all participants. The category perceived as least adequately addressed across the three groups was 'Counselling and psychological support.' The findings provide important new information regarding the needs of AYA cancer survivors that can inform the development of interventions to improve the quality of life of these individuals.

Efficacy of oral rofecoxib versus intravenous ketoprofen as an adjuvant to PCA morphine after urologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has become increasingly popular in the perioperative period because of their opioid-sparing effects. This randomized, controlled, double-dummy study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using oral rofecoxib as an alternative to intravenous ketoprofen for pain management in patients undergoing urologic surgery. METHODS: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (Control) or rofecoxib 50 mg po (Rofecoxib) 1 h prior to surgery. After a standardized spinal anesthetic, patients in the Control group received ketoprofen 100 mg IV q 8 h for 24 h, while the Rofecoxib group received an equivolume of saline at 8-h intervals for 24 h. Both groups were allowed to self-administer morphine (1 mg IV boluses) using a PCA delivery system. The need for 'rescue' analgesic medication, as well as pain scores [using an 11-point verbal rating scale (VRS) (0 = none to 10-severe)], were recorded at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24-h intervals after surgery. In addition, the incidences of side-effects were recorded at the end of the study period. RESULTS: Total amount of morphine required in the initial 24-h postoperative period was nonsignificantly reduced in the Rofecoxib group (29 +/- 2 vs. 37 +/- 4 mg). More importantly, the percentage of patients reporting moderate-to-severe pain (VRS score > or =4) during the study period was lower in the Rofecoxib group (12 vs. 22%, P < 0.05). The daily cost of rofecoxib (USD 1.14 for 50-mg dose) was also significantly less than ketoprofen (USD 3.06 for three 100-mg doses). CONCLUSION: Premedication with oral rofecoxib (50 mg) is a cost-effective alternative to the parenteral nonselective NSAID, ketoprofen (100 mg q 8 h), when used as an adjuvant to PCA morphine for pain management after urologic surgery.

Evaluación de los efectos de la política de focalización de subsidios en salud sobre la población sin capacidad de pago de cuatro localidades de Bogotá, D.C., Colombia, 2001 / Evaluation of the effects of the health subsidy focalization policy in Bogota, D.C., Colombia, 2001

Obejtivos: Analizar los problemas de la política de focalización y las caracteristicas de la toma de decisiones para asignar subsidios en salud a la población de los niveles 3 y 4 del SISBEN de cuatro localidades de bogotá, buscando aportar elementos de juicio para transformar los procesos de formulación de políticas y corregir sus defectos en materia de marginalización y exclusión. Metodos: Se asumió un enfoque metodológico crítico, participativo y pluralista que combinó múltiples métodos y técnicas de investigación desde una perspectiva sistémica y pos-estructuralista. Se realizaron cuatro subproyectos. Se analizó la política de focalización de subsidios en Colombia con base en el análisis del discurso de los principales actores sociopolíticos que participaron en su formulación. Se realizó un estudio cualitativo para establecer como es percibida la política de focalización del gasto en salud por la población excluída, por los prestadores publicos y las autoridades locales, con base en grupos focales y entrevistas a profundidad. Se hizo también un seguimiento del acceso y uso de servicios medicos a partir de la definición de una condición trazadora. Finalmente, se formularon recomendaciones colectivas de política desde la perspectiva de la población excluída, de los prestadores y de las autoridades.

Pharmacoeconomic assessment of propofol 2% used for prolonged sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that the use of propofol 2% is comparable to propofol 1% in effectiveness and in the wake-up time used for prolonged sedation. DESIGN: Open-label, case cohort study with a cohort of historical controls, phase IV clinical trial. SETTING: Medical and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a community hospital. PATIENTS: Fifty-one consecutive patients (medical, surgical, and trauma) admitted to our ICU requiring mechanical ventilation for >24 hrs. METHODS: All patients received propofol 2% (1-6 mg.kg-1.hr-1, starting with the lowest dose) and morphine chloride (0.5 mg.kg-1.24 hrs-1). A 4-5 level of sedation (Ramsay scale) was recommended. When weaning was indicated clinically, sedation and analgesia were interrupted abruptly, mechanical ventilation was discontinued, and the patient was connected to a T-bridge. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inability to attain the desired level of sedation with the highest dose rate of proposal, and hypertriglyceridemia >500 mg/dL, were considered therapeutic failure. The time between discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and extubation was measured. Those variables, as well as different items related to ICU cost, were compared between the study group and two historical groups sedated with propofol 1% and midazolam. RESULTS: The duration of sedation was 122.4 +/- 89.2 (sd) hrs for the propofol 2% group. The frequency of hypertriglyceridemia was 3.9% and 20.4% for the propofol 2% and the propofol 1% groups, respectively (p =.016). Therapeutic failure rates were 19.6% and 33.4% for the propofol 2% and propofol 1% groups, respectively (p =.127). The lower frequency of hypertriglyceridemia was associated with a higher number of patients reaching weaning. Weaning time was similar in the two propofol groups, 32.3 hrs ($1,744) for the propofol 2% group vs. 97.9 hrs ($5,287) for the midazolam group. Cost of sedation was $2.68 per hour for the midazolam group and $7.69 per hour for the propofol group. There was a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the propofol group, attributable to the shorter weaning time, although benefit was less than expected because higher doses of propofol 2% than propofol 1% were required during the first 48 hrs (p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The new propofol 2% preparation is an effective sedative agent and is safe because of the low frequency of associated hypertriglyceridemia. The shorter weaning time associated with the use of propofol 2% as compared with midazolam compensates for its elevated cost. The economic benefit of propofol 2% is less than expected because higher doses of propofol 2% than propofol 1% are required over the first 48 hrs.

Racial/ethnic disparities in the HIV and substance abuse epidemics: communities responding to the need.

In 1998, community leaders prompted members of the Black and Hispanic Congressional Caucuses to urge President Clinton to declare HIV/AIDS a crisis in the African American and Latino communities; their advocacy resulted in the formation of the Minority AIDS Initiative. As part of this initiative, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency funded the Substance Abuse and HIV Prevention Youth and Women of Color Initiative (CSAP Initiative). The CSAP Initiative is the first major federal effort to develop community-based integrated HIV and substance abuse prevention approaches targeting racial/ethnic populations that have been disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS. This article describes the current state of HIV prevention research involving racial/ethnic minority populations and the current status of the CSAP Initiative. The data collected through the CSAP Initiative, implemented by 47 community organizations, will help to fill the existing knowledge gap about how to best prevent HIV in these communities. This data collection effort is an unparalleled opportunity to learn about risk and protective factors, including contextual factors, that are critical to the prevention of HIV/AIDS in African American, Latino, and other racial/ethnic minority communities but that are often not investigated.

Prolonged sedation of critically ill patients with midazolam or propofol: impact on weaning and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of sedation, the time required for weaning, and the costs of prolonged sedation of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients with midazolam and propofol. DESIGN: Open-label, randomized, prospective, phase IV clinical trial. SETTING: Medical and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a community hospital. PATIENTS: All ICU admissions (medical, surgical and trauma) requiring mechanical ventilation for > 24 hrs. A total of 108 patients were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive midazolam or propofol. The dose range allowed for each drug was 0.1 to 0.5 mg/kg/hr for midazolam and 1 to 6 mg/kg/hr for propofol. The lowest dose that achieved an adequate patient-ventilator synchrony was infused. All patients received 0.5 mg/kg/24 hrs of morphine chloride. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The level of sedation was quantified by the Ramsay scale every 2 hrs until weaning from mechanical ventilation was started. If sedation could not be achieved by infusing the highest dose of midazolam or propofol, the case was recorded as a therapeutic failure. In the propofol group, serum triglycerides were determined every 72 hrs. Concentrations of > 500 mg/dL were also recorded as a therapeutic failure. When the patient was ready for weaning according to defined criteria, sedation was interrupted abruptly and the time from interruption of sedation to the first T-bridge trial and to extubation was measured. Cost analysis was performed based on the cost of intensive care in our unit ($54/hr). In the midazolam group (n = 54), 15 (27.8%) patients died; 11 (20.4%) patients had therapeutic failure; and 28 (51.8%) patients were subjected to a T-bridge trial. In the propofol group (n = 54), these proportions were 11 (20.4%), 18 (33.4% [including seven due to inadequate sedation, and 11 due to hypertriglyceridemia]), and 25 (46.2%), respectively. None of these values was significantly different between the two groups. Duration of sedation was 141.7 +/- 89.4 (SD) hrs and 139.7 +/- 84.7 hrs (p = NS), and cost (US dollars) attributed to sedation was $378 +/- 342 and $1,047 +/- 794 (p = .0001) for the midazolam and propofol groups, respectively. In the midazolam group, time from discontinuation of the drug infusion to extubation was 97.9 +/- 54.6 hrs (48.9 +/- 47.2 hrs to the first disconnection, and 49.0 +/- 23.7 hrs to extubation). In the propofol group, time from discontinuation of the drug infusion to extubation was 34.8 +/- 29.4 hrs (4.0 +/- 3.9 hrs to the first disconnection, and 30.8 +/- 29.2 hrs to extubation). The difference between the two groups in the weaning time was 63.1 +/- 12.5 (SEM) hrs (p < .0001). Cost per patient in the midazolam group (including ICU therapy and sedation with midazolam) was $10,828 +/- 5,734. Cost per patient in the propofol group was $9,466 +/- 5,820, $1,362 less than in the midazolam group. CONCLUSIONS: In our population of critically ill patients sedated with midazolam or propofol over prolonged periods, midazolam and propofol were equally effective as sedative agents. However, despite remarkable differences in the cost of sedation with these two agents, the economic profile is more favorable for propofol than for midazolam due to a shorter weaning time associated with propofol administration.