RESUMEN
Introduction: In Spain, 2 million people are treated for obstructive sleep apnoea. Continuous positive airway pressure, the gold-standard therapy, requires regular follow-up and periodic evaluation of the efficacy of the treatment via a titration examination, i.e. autoCPAP test. Telemonitoring use is increasing and this study aims to evaluate the cost impact of its use for therapy evaluation instead of the standard ambulatory autoCPAP test. Methods: This prospective observational study includes 100 OSA patients under CPAP therapy who volunteered to test telemonitoring as an alternative therapy control tool. Costs for both the patients and the Sleep Unit were calculated and compared for the standard of care (ambulatory autoCPAP (SoC)), vs alternative telemonitoring option (TM). Results: More than half (54%) of the patients preferred the TM option vs only 47.5% of the SoC patients. Patients inclining towards telemonitoring option were mainly reported to be more than 10 years youngers, mainly active workers (63%), travelling more distance to the Sleep Unit (16 vs 8 km) and spending more expenses in travel than those who preferred SoC (median 30). 29% of active workers left their jobs to attend the SoC. The costs related to the use of the Sleep Unit resources were found to be lower in the TM option compared to the SoC option (0.47 vs 3.09 euros per patient attended). Conclusions: The use of TM for follow-up CPAP therapy enables the patient to save travel costs and to reduce absenteeism but also to save assistential burden and therefore to reduce the Sleep Unit workload and optimize the care activity.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of corticosteroid pulses on 60-day mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We designed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in three teaching hospitals of Castilla y León, Spain (865,096 people). We selected patients with confirmed COVID-19 and lung involvement with a pO2/FiO2<300, excluding those exposed to immunosuppressors before or during hospitalization, patients terminally ill at admission, or those who died in the first 24 hours. We performed a propensity score matching (PSM) adjusting covariates that modify the probability of being treated. Then, we used a Cox regression model in the PSM group to consider factors affecting mortality. RESULTS: From 2933 patients, 257 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 124 patients were on corticosteroid pulses (250 mg of methylprednisolone for three days), and 133 were not. 30.3% (37/122) of patients died in the corticosteroid pulse group and 42.9% (57/133) in the nonexposed cohort. These differences (12.6%, 95% CI [8·54-16.65]) were statically significant (log-rank 4.72, p = 0, 03). We performed PSM using the exact method. Mortality differences remained in the PSM group (log-rank 5.31, p = 0.021) and were still significant after a Cox regression model (HR for corticosteroid pulses 0.561; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence about treatment with corticosteroid pulses in severe COVID-19 that might significantly reduce mortality. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with that selection process set a reliable frame to compare mortality in both the exposed and nonexposed groups.
