Repurposing empagliflozin in individuals with glycogen storage disease Ib: A value-based healthcare approach and systematic benefit-risk assessment.

Off-label repurposing of empagliflozin allows pathomechanism-based treatment of neutropenia/neutrophil-dysfunction in glycogen storage disease type Ib (GSDIb). From a value-based healthcare (VBHC) perspective, we here retrospectively studied patient-reported, clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes in 11 GSDIb individuals before and under empagliflozin at two centers (the Netherlands [NL], Austria [AT]), including a budget impact analysis, sensitivity-analysis, and systematic benefit-risk assessment. Under empagliflozin, all GSDIb individuals reported improved quality-of-life-scores. Neutrophil dysfunction related symptoms allowed either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor cessation or tapering. Calculated cost savings per patient per year ranged between € 6482-14 190 (NL) and € 1281-41 231 (AT). The budget impact analysis estimated annual total cost savings ranging between € 75 062-225 716 (NL) and € 37 697-231 790 (AT), based on conservative assumptions. The systematic benefit-risk assessment was favorable. From a VBHC perspective, empagliflozin treatment in GSDIb improved personal and clinical outcomes while saving costs, thereby creating value at multiple pillars. We emphasize the importance to reimburse empagliflozin for GSDIb individuals, further supported by the favorable systematic benefit-risk assessment. These observations in similar directions in two countries/health care systems strongly suggest that our findings can be extrapolated to other geographical areas and health care systems.

Patient-relevant health outcomes for hemophilia care: Development of an international standard outcomes set.

BACKGROUND: Patient-relevant health outcomes for persons with hemophilia should be identified and prioritized to optimize and individualize care for persons with hemophilia. Therefore, an international group of persons with hemophilia and multidisciplinary health care providers set out to identify a globally applicable standard set of health outcomes relevant to all individuals with hemophilia. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify possible health outcomes and risk adjustment variables. Persons with hemophilia and multidisciplinary health care providers were involved in an iterative nominal consensus process to select the most important health outcomes and risk adjustment variables for persons with hemophilia. Recommendations were made for outcome measurement instruments. RESULTS: Persons with hemophilia were defined as all men and women with an X-linked inherited bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency of coagulation factor VIII or IX with plasma activity levels <40 IU/dL. We recommend collecting the following 10 health outcomes at least annually, if applicable: (i) cure, (ii) impact of disease on life expectancy, (iii) ability to engage in normal daily activities, (iv) severe bleeding episodes, (v) number of days lost from school or work, (vi) chronic pain, (vii) disease and treatment complications, (viii) sustainability of physical functioning, (ix) social functioning, and (x) mental health. Validated clinical as well as patient-reported outcome measurement instruments were endorsed. Demographic factors, baseline clinical factors, and treatment factors were identified as risk-adjustment variables. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based international set of health outcomes relevant to all persons with hemophilia, and corresponding measurement instruments, was identified for use in clinical care to facilitate harmonized longitudinal monitoring and comparison of outcomes.

Fast assessment and management of chest pain patients without ST-elevation in the pre-hospital gateway (FamouS Triage): ruling out a myocardial infarction at home with the modified HEART score.

BACKGROUND: The first study of the FamouS Triage project investigates the feasibility of ruling out a myocardial infarction in pre-hospital chest pain patients without electrocardiographic ST-segment elevation by using the modified HEART score at the patient's home, incorporating only a single highly sensitive troponin T measurement. METHODS: A venous blood sample was drawn in the ambulance from 1127 consecutive chest pain patients for measurement of the pre-hospital highly sensitive troponin T levels, in order to establish a pre-hospital HEART score (i.e. the modified HEART score) and evaluate the possibility of triage at the patient's home. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) i.e. acute myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting or death within 30 days after initial presentation. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients (18%) developed a MACE during 30 days of follow-up. Thirty-six per cent of the patients ( n=403) had a low modified HEART score (0-3 points) and none of them developed a MACE during follow-up. Forty-four per cent of the patients ( n=494) had an intermediate modified HEART score (4-6 points) and 18% of them developed a MACE. Twenty per cent of the patients ( n=230) had a high modified HEART score (7-10 points) of which 52% developed a MACE during follow-up. CONCLUSION: It seems feasible to rule out a myocardial infarction at home in chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation by using the modified HEART score. TRIAL ID: NTR4205. Dutch Trial Register [ http://www.trialregister.nl ]: trial number 4205.

A nurse-initiated pain protocol in the ED improves pain treatment in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain.

While acute musculoskeletal pain is a frequent complaint, its management is often neglected. An implementation of a nurse-initiated pain protocol based on the algorithm of a Dutch pain management guideline in the emergency department might improve this. A pre-post intervention study was performed as part of the prospective PROTACT follow-up study. During the pre- (15 months, n = 504) and post-period (6 months, n = 156) patients' self-reported pain intensity and pain treatment were registered. Analgesic provision in patients with moderate to severe pain (NRS ≥4) improved from 46.8% to 68.0%. Over 10% of the patients refused analgesics, resulting into an actual analgesic administration increase from 36.3% to 46.1%. Median time to analgesic decreased from 10 to 7 min (P < 0.05), whereas time to opioids decreased from 37 to 15 min (P < 0.01). Mean pain relief significantly increased to 1.56 NRS-points, in patients who received analgesic treatment even up to 2.02 points. The protocol appeared to lead to an increase in analgesic administration, shorter time to analgesics and a higher clinically relevant pain relief. Despite improvements, suffering moderate to severe pain at ED discharge was still common. Protocol adherence needs to be studied in order to optimize pain management.

Prehospital paths and hospital arrival time of patients with acute coronary syndrome or stroke, a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a presumed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke may have had contact with several healthcare providers prior to hospital arrival. The aim of this study was to describe the various prehospital paths and the effect on time delays of patients with ACS or stroke. METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients with presumed ACS or stroke who may choose to contact four different types of health care providers. Questionnaires were completed by patients, general practitioners (GP), GP cooperatives, ambulance services and emergency departments (ED). Additional data were retrieved from hospital registries. RESULTS: Two hundred two ACS patients arrived at the hospital by 15 different paths and 243 stroke patients by ten different paths. Often several healthcare providers were involved (60.8 % ACS, 95.1 % stroke). Almost half of all patients first contacted their GP (47.5 % ACS, 49.4 % stroke). Some prehospital paths were more frequently used, e.g. GP (cooperative) and ambulance in ACS, and GP or ambulance and ED in stroke. In 65 % of all events an ambulance was involved. Median time between start of symptoms and hospital arrival for ACS patients was over 6 h and for stroke patients 4 h. Of ACS patients 47.7 % waited more than 4 h before seeking medical advice compared to 31.6 % of stroke patients. Median time between seeking medical advice to arrival at hospital was shortest in paths involving the ambulance only (60 min ACS, 54 min stroke) or in combination with another healthcare provider (80 to 100 min ACS, 99 to 106 min stroke). CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital paths through which patients arrived in hospital are numerous and often complex, and various time delays occurred. Delays depend on the entry point of the health care system, and dialing the emergency number seems to be the best choice. Since reducing patient delay is difficult and noticeable differences exist between various prehospital paths, further research into reasons for these different entry choices may yield possibilities to optimize paths and reduce overall time delay.

Fast assessment and management of chest pain without ST-elevation in the pre-hospital gateway: rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: For chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation in the pre-hospital setting, current clinical guidelines merely offer in-hospital risk stratification and management, as opposed to chest pain patients with ST-segment elevation for whom there is a straightforward pre-hospital strategy for diagnosis, medication regimen and logistics. The FAMOUS TRIAGE study will assess the effects of introducing a pre-hospital triage system that reliably stratifies chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation into 1) patients at high risk for NSTEMI requiring a direct transfer to a PCI-hospital; 2) patients at intermediate risk for a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) who could be evaluated at the nearest non-PCI hospital; and 3) patients at low risk for MACE (benign non-cardiac chest pain) who could have further evaluation at home or in a primary care setting. METHODS: The FAMOUS TRIAGE study will be performed in three phases. In the first phase an appropriate pre-hospital risk stratification tool will be designed for chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation by means of a retrospective and a prospective study. The second phase of the project represents the external validation of the risk stratification models, and in the third and final phase an optimal risk stratification tool will be implemented into clinical practice. Clinical and economical endpoints before and after implementation of the pre-hospital risk stratification tool will be compared to assess clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The FAMOUS TRIAGE project is a triple phase study that aims to optimize the pre-hospital management of chest pain patients without ST-segment elevation by providing tools for pre-hospital identification of NSTEMI or exclusion of acute coronary syndrome at home. TRIAL ID: NTR4205. Dutch Trial Register [http://www.trialregister.nl]: trial number 4205.

Pain management in the emergency chain: the use and effectiveness of pain management in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE: While acute musculoskeletal pain is a frequent complaint in emergency care, its management is often neglected, placing patients at risk for insufficient pain relief. Our aim is to investigate how often pain management is provided in the prehospital phase and emergency department (ED) and how this affects pain relief. A secondary goal is to identify prognostic factors for clinically relevant pain relief. DESIGN: This prospective study (PROTACT) includes 697 patients admitted to ED with musculoskeletal extremity injury. Data regarding pain, injury, and pain management were collected using questionnaires and registries. RESULTS: Although 39.9% of the patients used analgesics in the prehospital phase, most patients arrived at the ED with severe pain. Despite the high pain prevalence in the ED, only 35.7% of the patients received analgesics and 12.5% received adequate analgesic pain management. More than two-third of the patients still had moderate to severe pain at discharge. Clinically relevant pain relief was achieved in only 19.7% of the patients. Pain relief in the ED was higher in patients who received analgesics compared with those who did not. Besides analgesics, the type of injury and pain intensity on admission were associated with pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: There is still room for improvement of musculoskeletal pain management in the chain of emergency care. A high percentage of patients were discharged with unacceptable pain levels. The use of multimodal pain management or the implementation of a pain management protocol might be useful methods to optimize pain relief. Additional research in these areas is needed.