Postoperative anterior uveitis in a patient submitted to combined treatment with cataract surgery and iStent inject®. How to manage? / Uveíte anterior no pós-operatório de facectomia combinada com implante de iStent inject®. Como manejar?

ABSTRACT Minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries are surgical treatment alternatives for glaucoma aimed at reducing intraocular pressure with a better safety profile compared to traditional trabeculectomy. However, in spite of less invasive techniques, complications may develop in any surgical procedure. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of anterior uveitis following combined treatment with cataract surgery and iStent inject® which addresses the management of postoperative inflammation.

RESUMO As cirurgias minimamente invasivas para glaucoma consistem em uma opção de tratamento cirúrgico para glaucoma, a qual promove redução da pressão intraocular com melhor perfil de segurança do que a trabeculectomia. Todavia, complicações são inerentes à realização de procedimentos cirúrgicos, apesar do uso de técnicas menos invasivas. Este é o primeiro relato que apresenta um caso de uveíte anterior após cirurgia combinada de catarata e iStent inject®, além de orientações quanto ao manejo do quadro inflamatório.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVE: Omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy has proven to be efficacious in severe asthma patients for whom exacerbations cannot be controlled otherwise. Moreover, evidence from different healthcare settings suggests reduced healthcare resource utilization with omalizumab. Based on these findings, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted using Brazil-specific unit costs to compare the costs and outcomes of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy vs standard-of-care therapy alone. Model inputs were largely based on the eXpeRience study. Costs and health outcomes were calculated for lifetime-years and were annually discounted at 5%. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: An additional cost of R$280,400 for 5.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years was estimated with the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$53,890. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that discount rates, standard-of-care therapy exacerbation rates, and exacerbation-related mortality rates had the largest impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions of lifetime treatment adherence and rate of future exacerbations, independent of previous events, might affect the findings. The lack of Brazilian patients in the eXpeRience study may affect the findings, although sample size and baseline characteristics suggest that the modeled population closely resembles Brazilian severe allergic asthma patients. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that omalizumab as an add-on therapy is more cost-effective than standard-of-care therapy alone for Brazilian patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, based on the World Health Organization's cost-effectiveness threshold of up to 3-times the gross domestic product.

Differences in utility scores obtained through Brazilian and UK value sets: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease associated with several impacts; especially regarding patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). EuroQol 5 Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) provides self-reported analysis of HRQL and utility scores. Although the British algorithm to convert EQ-5D responses into utility is the most used in the literature, national settings is more appropriate for health policy decision makers. A Brazilian algorithm is available, but not used in MS patients yet. Primarily, this study aimed to address potential differences in utility scores obtained through Brazilian and British value sets. Secondary objective was to determine the role of disability, fatigue and patients socio-demographic and clinical characteristics relevant to MS on the utility scores reported by Brazilian patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with MS patients treated in 8 Brazilian sites. Patients were interviewed about socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, self-reported disability level, HRQL and impact of fatigue on daily living. Disability level, HRQL and impact of fatigue were assessed using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Brazilian versions of EQ-5D-3 L and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-BR), respectively. Patients were classified in subgroups according to EDSS (mild: 0-3; moderate: 4-6.5; severe: >7) and the self-perceived impact of fatigue (absent: ≤ 38 points; low: 39-58; high: ≥ 59). EQ-5D-3 L data was converted into a utility index using an algorithm developed by a Brazilian research group (QALY Brazil) and also the UK algorithm. Differences between utility scores were analysed through Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten patients were included in the study. Utility index mean scores of 0.59 (SD = 0.22) and 0.56 (SD = 0.32) for the Brazilian and UK algorithms were observed, respectively, without statistically significant difference for the distribution of data (p = 0.586). However, when utility scores were lower than 0.5, Brazilian algorithm provided higher estimates than UK with a better agreement between the scores found closer to 1. The same trend was observed when data was stratified for EDSS and impact of fatigue, with statistically significant difference between scores in categories of mild/severe disabilities and absent/high impact of fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that Brazilian value set provided higher utility scores than the UK, particularly for measures below 0.5.

Avaliação econômica da adição de omalizumabe ao tratamento de pacientes com asma alérgica grave não controlada sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde do Brasil / Economic evaluation of omalizumab add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma from the perspective of Unified Health System in Brazil

Determinar a relação de custo-efetividade da adição de omalizumabe à terapia padrão (TP) comparada à TP isolada em pacientes com asma alérgica grave não controlada sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde. Método: Um modelo de Markov baseado no estudo INNOVATE foi utilizado para comparar custos e desfechos ao longo da vida. No modelo os pacientes transitaram entre os estados de sintomas diários (asma controlada), exacerbações não grave clinicamente significantes (CS) e exacerbações graves CS. Os estados de morte foram separados em morte por todas as causas e morte devido à exacerbação grave da asma. Os desfechos foram exacerbações clinicamente significantes (ECS), eventos não graves e graves, e exacerbações graves clinicamente significantes (EGCS) evitadas. Os custos e ECS/EGCS evitadas foram utilizados para calcular RCEI (razão de custo-efetividade incremental) de omalizumabe. Análises de sensibilidade univariada e probabilística foram realizadas. Resultados: Os resultados mostraram que a adição de omalizumabe, quando comparada à TP isolada, representou um custo incremental de R$ 78.351/ECS evitada e R$ 103.170/EGCS evitada. As análises de sensibilidade confirmaram a robustez do modelo. Conclusão: Conforme demonstrado nas análises de sensibilidade, para que a razão de custo-efetividade da adição de omalizumabe passe a ser atrativa (probabilidade de pelo menos 70% de a RCEI ser menor que três PIB, produto interno bruto, per capita do Brasil, 2013), uma redução de 35% sobre o custo de aquisição do medicamento deve ser atribuída, em relação ao caso base...

Dynamic contour tonometry in asymmetric glaucoma patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine any difference in dynamic contour tonometry and ocular pulse amplitude in asymmetric glaucoma patients with the same applanation intraocular pressure. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study of 30 glaucoma patients and 11 controls from June 2007 to February 2008. Most of the glaucoma patients were on prostaglandin analog treatment. RESULTS: Mean applanation intraocular pressure in the control group was 14.28 mmHg for the right eye and 14.10 mmHg for the left eye (P > 0.05). Corneal thickness was 519.10 µm for the right eye and 511.07 µm for the left eye (P > 0.05). Mean dynamic contour tonometry intraocular pressure was 17.28 mmHg for the right eye and 17.25 mmHg for the left eye (P > 0.05). Mean ocular pulse amplitude was 2.80 mmHg for the right eye and 2.92 mmHg for the left eye (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: No differences in ocular pulse amplitude were found between the two groups and between the worst and the best eye. In spite of there being no difference in ocular pulse amplitude, dynamic contour tonometry intraocular pressure was 2.44 mmHg higher in the worst eye than in the best eye in the glaucoma patients, even with the same applanation intraocular pressure. Further studies are needed to confirm if this difference is related to glaucoma progression or a worst prognosis and whether it can be considered to be a new risk factor.

Efficacy and safety of travoprost alone or in combination with other agents for glaucoma and ocular hypertension: patient considerations.

Travoprost is a prostaglandin analog used in the management of glaucoma and ocular hypertension for reducing intraocular pressure (IOP). The IOP-lowering efficacy of travoprost has been shown to be similar to that of other prostaglandins, including latanoprost and bimatoprost. When compared with fixed combinations of timolol and either latanoprost or dorzolamide, travoprost alone can reduce mean IOP in a similar or superior manner. Concomitant therapy of travoprost and timolol can reach even greater IOP reductions than fixed combinations at some time points, but with no difference in the early morning, when IOP is usually higher. In addition, the long duration of action of travoprost can also provide better control of IOP fluctuation, probably due to its stronger prostaglandin F receptor mechanism. The side effects of travoprost do not represent a risk to the vision or health of the patient. The proven efficacy and safety combined with convenient once-daily dosing for travoprost increases patient compliance with treatment for glaucoma.