The cost burden of falls in people with glaucoma in National Health Service Hospital Trusts in the UK.

Aims: Falls have devastating consequences in older people with a considerable cost burden. Glaucoma is a risk factor for falls, and patients with glaucoma who fall are at high risk of hospital admission. The aim was to quantify the cost burden of falls to NHS Trusts in people with glaucoma in the UK.Methods: Financial data were used to identify non-elective episodes and associated costs from 2012 to 2018, for all admissions where glaucoma was recorded as a secondary diagnosis and admissions for falls (all, with and without a glaucoma secondary diagnosis). A secondary diagnosis is only recorded by the admitting clinician if it is clinically relevant; therefore, a secondary diagnosis of glaucoma was used as a proxy for glaucoma as a contributory factor to falls.Limitations: Use of financial records means that data on other falls risk factors was unavailable and we cannot be certain that glaucoma was the only relevant factor in all falls. Although this methodology is imperfect, case capture was biased towards cases with clinically significant glaucoma, and financial data is robust. Potential coding errors mean that we may have excluded patients in whom glaucoma was a factor in their fall.Results: At Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells (MTW) NHS Trust, 11.7% (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 10.7-12.8) of admissions for falls were in patients with a secondary diagnosis of glaucoma. This extrapolates to an estimated annual 10,056 admissions at a cost of £28.6 million across the UK. This is an under-estimate of cost, as A&E attendance without admission and outpatient appointments are excluded.Conclusions: At MTW, glaucoma potentially plays a part in around one in eight falls resulting in hospital admission, at considerable personal and financial cost. It is suggested that further work should explore early diagnosis of glaucoma, treatment, and mitigation of falls risk.

Real-world treatment outcomes in multiple myeloma: Multicenter registry results from Finland 2009-2013.

Outcomes for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have improved with the advent of novel therapies, however, real-world evidence of outcomes in clinical practice is scarce. We conducted a multi-center registry study to build a reliable picture of treatment and patient outcomes in Finland. The aim of this study was also to understand any methodological challenges in assessing treatment outcomes using disease registry data. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, observational study using data from the national Finnish Hematology Registry (FHR) to provide real-world evidence of outcomes for all adult patients diagnosed with and treated for MM between 2009-2013 at one of the six regional hospitals, with at least six months of recorded follow-up. Patients were identified within the FHR by applying eligibility criteria of a diagnosis of MM and verifiable records of medical treatment and lines of treatment during the study period. Patients receiving allogenic stem cell transplantation were excluded from the cohort, as were individuals who only had monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis and patients who had not initiated treatment during this period. Kaplan Meier curves were used to calculate overall survival and time to next treatment. Stratification was carried out by drug status (conventional/novel) and by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) status. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Overall survival (OS) was longest in patients who received first-line novel therapy and ASCT (median not reached during 60-month follow-up) versus 46.2 months for novel first-line therapy without ASCT and 25.6 months for first-line conventional therapy without ASCT. Similarly, median time to next treatment were 33.9 months, 12.6 months and 7.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of novel treatments in MM in Finland has had substantial impact on patient outcomes. Given the reality of complex treatment combinations for MM and relatively low patient numbers, assessing individual treatment effectiveness will require substantial cohort sizes and advanced, collaborative analytics on an international scale.

Consensus guidelines for the use of bowel preparation prior to colonic diagnostic procedures: colonoscopy and small bowel video capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonic diagnostic procedures is essential to ensure adequate visualisation. SCOPE: This consensus aims to provide guidance as to the appropriate use of bowel preparation for a range of defined clinical circumstances. A consensus group from across Europe was convened and met to discuss appropriate bowel preparation. The use of polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium picosulphate and sodium phosphate (NaP), together with other agents, prokinetics and simethicone, in colonoscopy and small bowel video capsule endoscopy were considered. A systematic review of the literature was carried out and additional unpublished data was obtained from the members of the consensus group where required. Recommendations were graded according to the level of evidence. FINDINGS: PEG-based regimens are recommended first line for both procedures, since their use is supported by good efficacy and safety data. Sodium-picosulphate-based regimens are recommended second line as their cleansing efficacy appears less than PEG-based regimens. NaP is not recommended for bowel cleansing due to the potential for renal damage and other adverse events. However, the use of NaP is acceptable in patients in whom PEG or sodium picosulphate is ineffective or not tolerated. NaP should not be used in patients with chronic kidney disease, pre-existing electrolyte disturbances, congestive heart failure, cirrhosis or a history of hypertension. The timing of the dose, dietary restrictions, use in special patient groups and recording of the quality of bowel preparation are also considered for patients undergoing colonoscopy. During the development of the guidelines the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) issued guidance on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The ESGE guidelines and these consensus guidelines share many recommendations; differences between the guidelines are reviewed. CONCLUSION: The use of bowel preparation should be tailored to the individual patient and their specific clinical circumstances.