Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostatic Artery Embolization for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

PURPOSE: To perform a post hoc cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis over a 5-year period to compare PAE versus TURP from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Data were collected from a randomized clinical trial performed at a single institution. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from the cost and QALY values associated with these treatments. Further sensitivity analysis was performed to account for the impact of reintervention on the cost-effectiveness of both procedures. RESULTS: At the 1-year follow-up, PAE resulted in mean cost per patient of €2904.68 and outcome of 0.975 QALYs per treatment. In comparison, TURP had cost €3846.72 per patient and its outcome was 0.953 QALYs per treatment. At 5 years, the cost for PAE and TURP were €4117.13 and €4297.58, and the mean QALY outcome was 4.572 and 4.487, respectively. Analysis revealed an ICER of €2121.15 saved per QALY gained when comparing PAE to TURP at long-term follow-up. Reintervention rate for PAE and TURP was 12% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP, in short term, PAE could be considered a cost-effective strategy within the Spanish healthcare system for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. However, in long term, the superiority is less apparent due to higher reintervention rates.

Clinical course of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with remdesivir: A real-life study.

BACKGROUND: There is currently much uncertainty regarding the most optimal treatment for COVID-19. This study analyze the change in the clinical condition of patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and treated with remdesivir in a real-life setting, based on the WHO Ordinal Scale. Clinical complications, treatment safety, and impact of other associated drugs were also analyzed. METHODS: We conducted an observational, retrospective study including patients treated with remdesivir. The need for admission to the ICU, the length of ICU and hospital stay, and the need for ventilatory support were analyzed. The laboratory parameters, drugs administered concomitantly, and difference in the length of hospital stay according to the concomitant treatment received were also evaluated. A univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to analyze associated factors. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were included. The mean length of hospital stay was 15 days, and 90% of the patients had been discharged from the hospital 28 days after starting treatment with remdesivir. The likelihood of hospital discharge among patients not presenting with hypertension as a comorbidity was significantly higher than that of those with this condition (HR = 3.19, P = 0.008). Nineteen patients had to be admitted to the ICU (mean of 18 days). Approximately 11% required invasive mechanical ventilation (mean of 22 days). Almost 37% of the patients received high-flow oxygen therapy and 14% non-invasive mechanical ventilation. Four deaths were recorded within the first week. Main adverse events were increases in transaminase and creatinine levels. Nosocomial infections were more frequent when remdesivir was combined with immunosuppressive drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and treated with remdesivir require relatively prolonged hospital stays, many with a need for ventilatory support and, in a considerable proportion of cases, admission to the ICU. However, the observed survival rate is high, and the drug is well tolerated.

Methylprednisolone Pulses in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Without Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Corticosteroids are the cornerstone of the treatment of patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. However, whether corticosteroids can prevent respiratory worsening in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without oxygen requirements is currently unknown. Aims: To assess the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulses (MPP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with increased levels of inflammatory markers not requiring oxygen at baseline. Methods: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Spain. Patients admitted for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with raised inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein >60 mg/L, interleukin-6 >40 pg/ml, or ferritin >1,000 µg/L) but without respiratory failure after the first week of symptom onset were randomized to receive a 3-day course of intravenous MPP (120 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was treatment failure at 14 days, a composite variable including mortality, the need for ICU admission or mechanical ventilation, and clinical worsening, this last parameter defined as a PaO2/FiO2 ratio below 300; or a 15% decrease in the PaO2 from baseline, together with an increase in inflammatory markers or radiological progression. If clinical worsening occurred, patients received tocilizumab and unmasked corticosteroids. The secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, adverse events, need for ICU admission or high-flow oxygen, length of hospital stay, SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and changes in laboratory parameters. Results: A total of 72 patients were randomized and 71 patients were analyzed (34 in the MPP group and 37 in the placebo group). Twenty patients presented with treatment failure (29.4 in the MPP group vs. 27.0% in the placebo group, p = 0.82), with no differences regarding the time to treatment failure between groups. There were no cases of death or mechanical ventilation requirements at 14 days post-randomization. The secondary outcomes were similar in MPP and placebo groups. Conclusions: A 3-day course of MPP after the first week of disease onset did not prevent respiratory deterioration in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with an inflammatory phenotype who did not require oxygen.

Prostatic Artery Embolization Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate: A Post Hoc Cost Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To perform a post hoc analysis of patient-incurred costs in a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing prostatic artery embolization (PAE) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients older than 60 years with indication of TURP were randomized to PAE or TURP procedure. After intervention and hospital discharge, patients were follow-up during 12 months The associated patient costs were categorized according to the study period: pre-intervention, intervention, hospitalization, and follow-up. Several items for both groups were analyzed within each study period. RESULTS: The mean total costs per patient were lower for PAE (€ 3,192.87) than for TURP (€ 3,974.57), with this difference of € 781.70 being significant (p = 0.026). For most evaluated items, the mean costs were significantly higher for TURP. No significant differences were observed in the mean costs of PAE (€ 1,468.00) and TURP (€ 1,684.25) procedures (p = 0.061). However, the histopathology analysis, recovery room stay, and intraoperative laboratory analysis increased the interventional costs for TURP (€ 1,999.70) compared with PAE (€ 1,468.00) (p < 0.001). No cost differences were observed between PAE (€ 725.26) and TURP (€ 556.22) during the 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.605). None of patients required a repeat intervention during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the short-term follow-up, PAE was associated with significantly lower costs compared with TURP. Future investigations in the context of routine clinical practice should be aimed at comparing the long-term effectiveness of both procedures and determining their cost-effectiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1 (a-c).

Randomized Comparison of Prostatic Artery Embolization versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) with those of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Noninferiority randomized trial was conducted involving men over 60 years of age with LUTS secondary to BPH. From November 2014 to January 2017, 45 patients were randomized to PAE (n = 23) or to TURP (n = 22). PAE was performed with 300- to 500-µm microspheres with the patient under local anesthesia, whereas bipolar TURP was performed with the patients under spinal or general anesthesia. Primary outcomes were changes in peak urinary flow (Qmax) and international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) from baseline to 12 months. Quality of life (QoL), and prostate volume (PV) changes from baseline to 12 month were secondary outcomes. Adverse events were compared using the Clavien classification. RESULTS: Mean Qmax increased from 6.1 mL/s in the PAE group and from 9.6 mL/s in the TURP patients (P = .862 for noninferiority), and mean IPSS reduction was 21.0 points for PAE and 18.2 points for TURP subjects (P = .080) at 12 months. A greater QoL improvement was reported in the PAE group (3.78 points for PAE and 3.09 points for TURP; P = .002). Mean PV reduction was 20.5 cm³ (34.2%) for PAE subjects and 44.7 cm³ (71.2%) for TURP subjects (P < .001). There were fewer adverse events reported in the PAE group than in the TURP group (n = 15 vs n = 47; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of LUTS in the PAE group was similar to that in the TURP group at 12 months, with fewer complications secondary to PAE. Long-term follow-up is needed to compare the durability of the symptomatic improvement from each procedure.

Randomised controlled trial on vitreoretinal surgery with and without oral anticoagulants: surgical complications, visual results and perioperative thromboembolic events.

BACKGROUND: Vitreoretinal surgery in anticoagulated patients is a challenging situation for vitreoretinal surgeons, who have to choose between being faced with the systemic thromboembolic risks that the interruption of anticoagulation involves, or the intra- and postoperative haemorrhagic risks associated with maintenance of this therapy. So far, no trial has compared, in a prospective and randomized manner, perioperative complications and the visual results associated with continuation or interruption of oral anticoagulant therapy before pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) under retrobulbar anaesthesia. The main objective of this trial is to compare haemostasis-related perioperative complications of PPV in patients maintaining anticoagulant therapy before surgery compared to patients with an interruption in this therapy before surgery. METHODS: Ninety-six patients will be randomly assigned to either the control group, in whom oral anticoagulant therapy will be interrupted and substituted with subcutaneous heparin according to local clinical practice, or the intervention group in whom oral anticoagulant therapy will not be interrupted before surgery. Patients will be stratified according to the oral anticoagulant they were taking (direct or indirect anticoagulation). They will be followed up for 12 weeks, and the primary outcome, and haemorrhagic complications until 15 days after surgery, will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide novel information on the possibility of continuing anticoagulant therapy during PPV. The benefits expected from the change in the current surgical management paradigm for anticoagulated patients would be a decreased risk in the incidence of perioperative thromboembolic events and the possibility of performing surgery without delay and without the need for patients to change their usual anticoagulation protocol to the more complex and less safe substitutive therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Register EudraCT, 2018-000753-45. Registered on 11 November 2018.

Clip Closure After Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions With Substantial Risk of Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether closure of mucosal defects with clips after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) prevents delayed bleeding, although it seems to have no protective effects when risk is low. We performed a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of complete clip closure of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions after EMR in patients with an estimated average or high risk of delayed bleeding. METHODS: We performed a single-blind trial at 11 hospitals in Spain from May 2016 through June 2018, including 235 consecutive patients who underwent EMR for large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions with an average or high risk of delayed bleeding (based on Spanish Endoscopy Society Endoscopic Resection Group score). Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received closure of the scar with 11-mm through-the-scope clips (treated, n = 119) or no clip (control, n = 116). The primary outcome was proportion of patients in each group with delayed bleeding, defined as evident hematochezia that required medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy. RESULTS: In the clip group, complete closure was achieved in 68 (57%) cases, with partial closure in 33 (28%) cases and failure to close in 18 (15%) cases. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (12.1%) patients in the control group and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95% confidence interval, -14.7% to 0.3%). After completion of the clip closure, there was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions undergoing EMR, we found that clip closure of mucosal defects in patients with a risk of bleeding can be a challenge, but also reduces delayed bleeding. Prevention of delayed bleeding required complete clip closure. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02765022.

Cancer Clinical Trials: Treatment Costs Associated With a Spanish National Health System Institution.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials should be part of routine health care. There is a common perception that enrolling patients into clinical trials results in additional costs. We conducted a retrospective cost analysis to compare medical costs attributable to participation in cancer treatment trials versus standard of care in a single Spanish institution. METHODS: Patients recruited into cancer clinical trials between 2014 and 2016 were selected. Each research protocol was reviewed to identify trial-associated medical procedures and costs, as well as the equivalent care had the patient not been entered in the trial. Treatment cost difference was the difference between the cost of the clinical trial and that of the standard of care. RESULTS: A total of 68 adult patients were treated in 20 different clinical trials. The overall cost treatment of the patients included in the trials was 79% lower in comparison to the standard of care. However, the load of medical procedures was 32% higher. The average treatment cost per patient and protocol ranged from an excess of €8193 to a saving of €59,770. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide range of difference in treatment costs for cancer clinical trial participants versus standard of care. Commercial trial protocols were associated with larger savings compared with the noncommercial ones, even though these may involve excess treatment costs. Overall, clinical trials provide not only the best context for progress of clinical research and health care but also creates opportunities for reducing cancer care costs.