Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Curr Opin Gastroenterol ; 32(1): 55-60, 2016 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26628100

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The workup of chronic unexplained diarrhea can be equally frustrating for care providers and patients. It carries a physical, financial, and social toll. In this review we provide a sensible approach to evaluating and managing chronic diarrhea. RECENT FINDINGS: Bile acid diarrhea is becoming increasingly recognized as a potential cause behind some cases of chronic diarrhea. SUMMARY: A detailed history and physical examination can provide clues that guide a logical approach to the evaluation. We suggest a cost-effective approach to the workup and management of chronic diarrhea based on individual patient factors related to clinical history and physical exam. We find that this approach leads to initiation of treatment in a time-efficient fashion and avoids unnecessary testing.


Assuntos
Ácidos e Sais Biliares/metabolismo , Diarreia/etiologia , Síndromes de Malabsorção/complicações , Anamnese/métodos , Exame Físico/métodos , Doença Crônica , Análise Custo-Benefício , Diarreia/tratamento farmacológico , Diarreia/economia , Humanos , Síndromes de Malabsorção/tratamento farmacológico , Síndromes de Malabsorção/economia , Síndromes de Malabsorção/fisiopatologia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto
2.
World J Gastroenterol ; 21(40): 11379-86, 2015 Oct 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26525925
3.
Health Technol Assess ; 17(61): 1-236, 2013 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24351663

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The principal diagnosis/indication for this assessment is chronic diarrhoea due to bile acid malabsorption (BAM). Diarrhoea can be defined as the abnormal passage of loose or liquid stools more than three times daily and/or a daily stool weight > 200 g per day and is considered to be chronic if it persists for more than 4 weeks. The cause of chronic diarrhoea in adults is often difficult to ascertain and patients may undergo several investigations without a definitive cause being identified. BAM is one of several causes of chronic diarrhoea and results from failure to absorb bile acids (which are required for the absorption of dietary fats and sterols in the intestine) in the distal ileum. OBJECTIVE: For people with chronic diarrhoea with unknown cause and in people with Crohn's disease and chronic diarrhoea with unknown cause (i.e. before resection): (1) What are the effects of selenium-75-homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) compared with no SeHCAT in terms of chronic diarrhoea, other health outcomes and costs? (2) What are the effects of bile acid sequestrants (BASs) compared with no BASs in people with a positive or negative SeHCAT test? (3) Does a positive or negative SeHCAT test predict improvement in terms of chronic diarrhoea, other health outcomes and costs? DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of SeHCAT for the assessment of BAM and the measurement of bile acid pool loss. Search strategies were based on target condition and intervention, as recommended in the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance for undertaking reviews in health care and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. The following databases were searched up to April 2012: MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; EMBASE; the Cochrane Databases; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database; and Science Citation Index. Research registers and conference proceedings were also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review methods followed the principles outlined in the CRD guidance for undertaking reviews in health care and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Diagnostic Assessment Programme interim methods statement. In the health economic analysis, the cost-effectiveness of SeHCAT for the assessment of BAM, in patients with chronic diarrhoea, was estimated in two different populations. The first is the population of patients with chronic diarrhoea with unknown cause and symptoms suggestive of diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) and the second population concerns patients with Crohn's disease without ileal resection with chronic diarrhoea. For each population, three models were combined: (1) a short-term decision tree that models the diagnostic pathway and initial response to treatment (first 6 months); (2) a long-term Markov model that estimates the lifetime costs and effects for patients initially receiving BAS; and (3) a long-term Markov model that estimates the lifetime costs and effects for patients initially receiving regular treatment (IBS-D treatment in the first population and Crohn's treatment in the second population). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated as additional cost per additional responder in the short term (first 6 months) and per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the long term (lifetime). RESULTS: We found three studies assessing the relationship between the SeHCAT test and response to treatment with cholestyramine. However, the studies had small numbers of patients with unknown cause chronic diarrhoea, and they used different cut-offs to define BAM. For the short term (first 6 months), when trial of treatment is not considered as a comparator, the optimal choice depends on the willingness to pay for an additional responder. For lower values (between £1500 and £4600) the choice will be no SeHCAT in all scenarios; for higher values either SeHCAT 10% or SeHCAT 15% becomes cost-effective. For the lifetime perspective, the various scenarios showed widely differing results: in the threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained we found as optimal choice either no SeHCAT, SeHCAT 5% (only IBS-D) or SeHCAT 15%. When trial of treatment is considered a comparator, the analysis showed that for the short term, trial of treatment is the optimal choice across a range of scenarios. For the lifetime perspective with trial of treatment, again the various scenarios show widely differing results. Depending on the scenario, in the threshold range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained, we found as optimal choice either trial of treatment, no SeHCAT or SeHCAT 15%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the various analyses show that for both populations considerable decision uncertainty exists and that no firm conclusions can be formulated about which strategy is optimal. Standardisation of the definition of a positive SeHCAT test should be the first step in assessing the usefulness of this test. As there is no reference standard for the diagnosis of BAM and SeHCAT testing provides a continuous measure of metabolic function, diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are not the most appropriate study design. However, in studies where all patients are tested with SeHCAT and all patients are treated with BASs, response to treatment can provide a surrogate reference standard; further DTA studies of this type may provide information on the ability of SeHCAT to predict response to BASs. A potentially more informative option would be multivariate regression modelling of treatment response (dependent variable), with SeHCAT result and other candidate clinical predictors as covariates. Such a study design could also inform the definition of a positive SeHCAT result. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012001911. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.


Assuntos
Ácidos e Sais Biliares/metabolismo , Doença de Crohn/diagnóstico , Diarreia/diagnóstico , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/diagnóstico , Síndromes de Malabsorção/diagnóstico , Ácido Taurocólico/análogos & derivados , Adulto , Ácidos e Sais Biliares/economia , Ácidos e Sais Biliares/uso terapêutico , Doença Crônica , Análise Custo-Benefício , Doença de Crohn/tratamento farmacológico , Doença de Crohn/economia , Doença de Crohn/fisiopatologia , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Diarreia/tratamento farmacológico , Diarreia/economia , Diarreia/etiologia , Humanos , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/tratamento farmacológico , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/economia , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/fisiopatologia , Síndromes de Malabsorção/tratamento farmacológico , Síndromes de Malabsorção/economia , Síndromes de Malabsorção/fisiopatologia , Modelos Econômicos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Ácido Taurocólico/economia , Reino Unido
4.
Gastroenterology ; 130(2 Suppl 1): S158-62, 2006 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16473065

RESUMO

Intestinal transplantation has become a standard treatment for intestinal failure in patients with life-threatening complications of TPN. Although the long-term survival of patients with continued parenteral nutrition is higher than after intestinal transplantation, the 1 and 2 year survival is comparable. Here we examine other aspects of the treatment options available for patients with intestinal failure including the cost of the therapy and the quality of life. The cost of parenteral nutrition compared to intestinal transplantation reveals that transplantation is cost-effective in patients that maintain graft function within 1 to 3 years after surgery. The quality of life after transplantation is probably equal to or better than quality of life on TPN and children report quality of life similar to normal school children. Although currently reserved for those with life-threatening complications, intestinal transplantation may soon be an option for any patient permanently dependent on parenteral nutrition.


Assuntos
Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Intestinos/transplante , Síndromes de Malabsorção/terapia , Nutrição Parenteral/economia , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Síndromes de Malabsorção/economia , Síndromes de Malabsorção/mortalidade , Transplante de Órgãos/economia , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA