RESUMEN
Introduction: The symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults highly interfere with function in multiple dimensions, increasing the economic burden associated with ADHD. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of ADHD in Spanish adults and estimate the associated economic burden within the healthcare, social, economic, and legal domains. Methods: An economic model was developed from a social perspective using a bottom-up approach, based on the scientific literature and a multidisciplinary expert group. Results: The cost incurred per diagnosed adult patient with ADHD included an annual cost of 15,652 and a one-time cost of 7,893 (3,035 M and 1,531 M for Spain, respectively). Regarding the annual cost, 50% was attributed to costs within the economic domain, of which 53% were work-absenteeism-related. Moreover, 28% was attributed to costs within the social domain, of which 74% were substance-abuse-related. Regarding the one-time cost, 52% was attributed to costs within the healthcare domain, of which approximately 50% were hospitalization-related costs. Moreover, 42% was attributed to costs within the legal domain, of which 62% were imprisonment-related costs. Conclusions: This is the first report on the socioeconomic burden of ADHD in Spanish adults, shedding light on the large burden that adult ADHD poses on the healthcare system and society at large, as symptoms have been shown to impact almost every aspect of life. This is particularly important for undiagnosed/untreated patients with ADHD in Spain, as appropriate treatments have shown positive results in these areas and may reduce its associated socioeconomic burden.
RESUMEN
Microelimination strategies for the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in vulnerable populations, such as users of Addiction Centres (AC), are key for the elimination of hepatitis C. The aim of the HepCelentes project was to design a certification program for AC from the generation of a guide with the criteria to favour the prevention, diagnosis, control, and treatment of HCV in Spain. The project was structured in 4 phases: normalisation, implementation, certification, and communication. In the first phase, developed between July and December 2020, a Steering Committee was created (formed by representatives of scientific societies, healthcare professionals from AC, primary care centres and hospital units, and patient associations) that, from of an exhaustive bibliographic review, generated by consensus an accreditation guide for AC. The guide consists of 22 criteria (15 mandatory and 7 recommended) structured based on the requirements to be met by AC, justification for the selection, level of action (management, prevention, diagnosis and treatment/follow-up), measurement of the indicator, objective level to be achieved, evidence of compliance, clarifications to improve understanding, and mandatory / recommendation (depending on their relevance to achieve HCV elimination and its feasibility for implementation in real practice). The development of a certification system for the AC, based on consensus and coordination of multidisciplinary teams, is intended to favour the management of hepatitis C and its elimination in AC users, supporting the international, national, and regional elimination strategies.
Las estrategias de microeliminación del virus de la hepatitis C (VHC) en poblaciones vulnerables, como los usuarios de los centros de adicciones (CA), son fundamentales para lograr la eliminación de la hepatitis C. El objetivo del proyecto HepCelentes fue diseñar un programa de certificación para los CA, a partir de la generación de una guía con los criterios para favorecer la prevención, diagnóstico, control y tratamiento del VHC en España. El proyecto se estructuró en 4 fases: normalización, implementación, certificación y comunicación. En la primera fase, desarrollada entre julio y diciembre de 2020, se creó un Comité de Normalización (formado por representantes de sociedades científicas, profesionales sanitarios de CA, centros de atención primaria, unidades hospitalarias, y asociaciones de pacientes) que, a partir de una revisión bibliográfica exhaustiva, generó por consenso una guía de certificación de los CA. La guía consta de 22 criterios (15 obligatorios y 7 recomendados) estructurados en base a la definición del criterio, justificación de su selección, nivel de actuación (gestión, prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento/seguimiento), fórmula de medición, nivel objetivo a alcanzar, evidencias de su cumplimiento, aclaraciones para mejorar su comprensión y obligatoriedad/recomendación (en función de la relevancia en la eliminación y capacidad de implementación). El desarrollo de un sistema de certificación para los CA, a partir del consenso y la coordinación de equipos multidisciplinares, pretende favorecer el manejo de la hepatitis C y su eliminación en los usuarios de los CA, apoyando las estrategias de eliminación internacionales, nacionales y autonómicas.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The clinical and economic management of retinal diseases has become more complex following the introduction of new intravitreal treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) offers the potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional decision-making tools. OBJECTIVES: A MCDA to determine the most relevant criteria to decision-making in the management of diabetic macular edema (DME) based on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in Spain was developed. This MCDA was termed the MULTIDEX-EMD study. METHODS: Nineteen stakeholders (7 physicians, 4 pharmacists, 5 health authorities and health management experts, 1 psychologist, and 2 patient representatives) participated in this three-phase project. In phase A, an advisory board defined all of the criteria that could influence DME treatment decision-making. These criteria were then screened using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) (phase B). Next, a multinomial logit model was fitted by applying the backward elimination algorithm (relevant criteria: p value < 0.05). Finally, the results were discussed in a deliberative process (phase C). RESULTS: Thirty-one criteria were initially defined (phase A) and grouped into 5 categories: efficacy/effectiveness, safety, organizational and economic impact, patient-reported outcomes, and other therapeutic features. The DCE results (phase B) showed that 10 criteria were relevant to the decision-making process for a 50- to 65-year-old DME patient: mean change in best corrected visual acuity (p value < 0.001), percentage of patients with an improvement of ≥ 15 letters (p value < 0.001), effect duration per administration (p value = 0.008), retinal detachment (p value < 0.001), endophthalmitis (p value = 0.012), myocardial infarction (p value < 0.001), intravitreal hemorrhage (p value = 0.021), annual treatment cost per patient (p value = 0.001), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (p value = 0.004), and disability level (p value = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: From a multi-stakeholder perspective, the selection of an appropriate treatment for DME patients should guarantee patient safety and maximize the visual acuity improvement and treatment effect duration. It should also contribute to system sustainability by being affordable, it should have a positive impact on HRQoL, and it should prevent disability.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Regarding the treatment of patients with resistant schizophrenia, different options exit, although they are supported by limited evidence. In this study, antipsychotic polypharmacy, comprising 1200 mg of amisulpride and 600 mg of quetiapine, was used. Clinical change evaluation was performed using neurocognitive evaluations. STUDY QUESTION: The use of amisulpride and quetiapine will imply a clinical improvement in patients affected by schizophrenia, which will be specially reflected in a cognitive improvement. STUDY DESIGN: Naturalistic and prospective study. Twenty-six patients were applied and assessed by a battery of neurocognitive evaluations since the pretreatment baseline until 6-month treatment. The patients had no biological response to medication, high social maladjustment, and a long clinical history of the disease. Kane and Brenner criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia were applied to choose the subjects. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The cognitive improvement will imply a significant betterment, from the pretreatment baseline until 6-month treatment, in the following cognitive tests: Stroop Test, WAIS Coding Subtest, and Comprehensive Trail Making Test (CTMT). An improvement in the Calgary Depression Scale, Simpson-Angus Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale (EVA) will also be observed. This scales were been used during the baseline, 3 months after, and then, 6 months. RESULTS: Subjects, after 6-month treatment with amisulpride and quetiapine, did show statistically significant differences in the assessed areas: WAIS Coding Subtest (P < 0.001), CTMT A and B (CTMT A P < 0.034; CTMT B P < 0.000), and Stroop Tests: Word (P < 0.001), Word-Color (P < 0.007), and Interference (P < 0.039). Furthermore, they showed a statistically significant difference in the Calgary Depression Scale (P < 0.002), Simpson-Angus Scale (P < 0.019), and EVA (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this report show a cognitive and clinical improvement in refractory patients after the administration of amisulpride and quetiapine.
