ABSTRACT
Resumen Objetivo: el cáncer gástrico es la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer y la quinta neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. En Colombia, es la primera causa de mortalidad por cáncer. La incidencia y mortalidad anuales son 16,3 y 14,2/100 000 habitantes, respectivamente. El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar su carga de enfermedad, medida en años de vida ajustados por discapacidad (AVAD), en Colombia. Métodos: se desarrolló un estudio con enfoque en prevalencia para el año 2014. Para estimar la prevalencia, se realizó una búsqueda en los registros del Sistema de Información en Protección Social (SISPRO) y el Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (DANE). La duración promedio de los casos prevalentes y la sobrevida estimada se obtuvieron de la literatura local. Los AVAD fueron calculados sumando los años de vida perdidos por muerte prematura (AVPM) y los años de vida vividos con discapacidad (AVVD), según la metodología de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Resultados: las prevalencias estimadas para 5 años en población mayor de 15 años fueron 40,9/100 000 en mujeres y 62,5/100 000 en hombres. El total de AVAD fue 293,418, con una tasa de 623/100 000 habitantes, de los cuales el 97,4% corresponde a AVPM. La tasa de AVVD y AVPM para Colombia fue 16 y 607/100 000, respectivamente. Conclusiones: los datos obtenidos de SISPRO y el DANE estiman una alta carga de enfermedad en Colombia. Es necesaria la implementación de estrategias de detección temprana del cáncer para disminuir la carga de la enfermedad y mejorar el pronóstico de los pacientes.
Abstract Objective: Gastric cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death and the fifth most common neoplasm in the world. In Colombia, it is the leading cause of cancer mortality. The annual incidence and mortality are 16.3/100,000 and 14.2/100,000 inhabitants respectively. The aim of this study was to estimate the disease burden in Colombia as measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Methods: This study focuses on prevalence in 2014. To estimate prevalence, a search was made in the registries of the Social Protection Information System (SISPRO) and the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE). The average duration of cases and estimated survival were obtained from the local literature. DALYs were calculated by adding the years of life lost due to premature death (YLLs) and years of life lived with disability (YLD) according to the methodology of the World Health Organization (WHO). Results: Prevalences estimated for five years in the population older than 15 years were 40.9/100,000 for women and 62.5/100,000 for men. The total DALY was 293,418, with a rate of 623/100,000 inhabitants; 97.4% correspond to YLL. The YLD and YLL for Colombia were 16/100,000 and 607/100,000, respectively. Conclusions: Data obtained from SISPRO and DANE estimate a high disease burden in Colombia. It is necessary to implement early cancer detection strategies to reduce the burden of disease and improve patient prognosis.
Subject(s)
Cost of Illness , Stomach Neoplasms , Databases, FactualABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Pen devices offer advantages compared with vial and syringe (VaS). The purpose of this article was to evaluate efficacy of pen devices compared to VaS. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was performed in 8 different databases. References were independently screened and selected. Primary observational or experimental studies comparing pen devices with VaS for insulin administrations were included. Studies on specific populations were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools. Data on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, adherence, persistence, patient preference, and quality of life (QOL) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses of the available data was done. RESULTS: In all, 10 348 articles were screened. A total of 17 studies were finally selected: 7 experimental and 10 analytical. The populations of the included articles were mainly composed of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Important risk of bias was found in all of the articles, particularly experimental studies. Meta-analyses were performed for HbA1c, hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence. Pen device showed better results in mean HbA1c change, patients with hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence compared to VaS. No difference was observed in number of patients achieving <7% HbA1c. Preference studies showed a tendency favoring pen devices, however nonvalidated tools were used. One QoL study showed improvements in some subscales of SF-36. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that pen devices offer benefits in clinical and, less clearly, patient-reported outcomes compared to VaS for insulin administration. However, these results should be taken with caution.
