Perceptions about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among healthcare professionals in Spain (PERPPRES Study).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of support, knowledge and perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by Infectious Disease Specialists and Hospital Pharmacists in Spain. METHODS: Cross-sectional study through an on-line 31-item survey (sociodemographical data, employment status/experience, knowledge of PrEP, use, identified barriers and economic issues). A univariate analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with support for PrEP, and compare the assessments by Specialists and Pharmacists. The questions about support for PrEP and agreement with the indication approval were repeated after showing data from published studies. The significance of the change in the answers was analyzed using the McNemar Test. RESULTS: 211 questionnaires were received (80.1% from Pharmacists). 40.3% had low/no familiarity with PrEP (46.2% Pharmacists vs. 16.7% Physicians; p < 0.01). A 53.6% of them would support the use of PrEP (49.7% Pharmacists vs. 69% Physicians; p = 0.038). The minimum acceptable efficacy in order to support PrEP was 85.0 ± 15.5% (82.6 ± 12.1% by Physicians vs. 85.6 ± 15.0% by Pharmacists; p = 0.02). The variables associated with support were: medical profession (OR = 2.26; 95%CI 1.1-4.6; p = 0.038) and lower demand for efficacy (difference = 10.5%; 95%CI 6.9 to 14.1; p < 0.001). After receiving the information, there was an increase in their support for use and indication approval. Most participants (81.5%) did not support its reimbursement. The main barriers identified were: an increase in risk behaviour (24.1%), increase in sexually transmitted diseases (19.0%), resistance (16.6%) and cost (16.0%). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of participants were familiar with PrEP. The majority of them would support its use and the approval of the indication, but would not reimburse it. The use of PrEP in real practice is currently low.

Objetivo: Determinar el grado de apoyo, conocimientos y percepciones respecto a la profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) de los médicos infectólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios en España. Métodos: Estudio transversal mediante encuesta de 31 ítems (datos sociodemográficos, situación laboral/experiencia, conocimiento sobre PrEP, uso, opiniones, barreras detectadas y aspectos financieros). Se realizó un análisis univariante para evaluar las variables relacionadas con el apoyo a PrEP y comparar las valoraciones de médicos y farmacéuticos. Las preguntas sobre apoyo a la PrEP y el acuerdo sobre aprobar la indicación se repitieron tras mostrar datos de estudios publicados. Se analizó la significación del cambio en la respuesta mediante la prueba de McNemar. Resultados: Se recibieron 211 cuestionarios (80,1% farmacéuticos). El 40,3% estuvieron nada/poco familiarizados con la PrEP (46,2% farmacéuticos vs. 16,7% médicos; p < 0,01). El 53,6% apoyaría su uso (49,7% farmacéuticos vs. 69% médicos; p = 0,038). La eficacia mínima considerada aceptable fue 85,0 ± 15,5% (82,6 ± 12,1% médicos vs. 85,6 ± 15,0% farmacéuticos; p = 0,02). Las variables relacionadas con el apoyo fueron: profesión médica (OR = 2,26 IC95% 1,1-4,6; p = 0,038) y menor exigencia de eficacia (diferencia 10,5% IC95% 6,9-14,1; p < 0,001). Tras recibir la información, aumentaron el apoyo al uso y la aprobación. El 81,5% no apoyaron la financiación. Las principales barreras señaladas fueron: aumento de conductas de riesgo (24,1%), aumento de enfermedades de transmisión sexual (19,0%), resistencias (16,6%) y coste (16,0%). Conclusiones: Más de la mitad de los encuestados estaban familiarizados con la PrEP. La mayoría apoyaría su uso y la aprobación de la indicación, pero no la financiaría. El uso en la práctica real de la PrEP es escaso en la actualidad.

Perceptions about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among healthcare professionals in Spain (PERPPRES Study) / Percepción de los profesionales sanitarios sobre la profilaxis preexposición al VIH en España (Estudio PERPPRES)

Objective: To determine the level of support, knowledge and perceptions of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by Infectious Disease Specialists and Hospital Pharmacists in Spain. Methods: Cross-sectional study through an on-line 31-item survey (sociodemographical data, employment status/experience, knowledge of PrEP, use, identified barriers and economic issues). A univariate analysis was performed to evaluate the variables associated with support for PrEP, and compare the assessments by Specialists and Pharmacists. The questions about support for PrEP and agreement with the indication approval were repeated after showing data from published studies. The significance of the change in the answers was analyzed using the McNemar Test. Results: 211 questionnaires were received (80.1% from Pharmacists). 40.3% had low/no familiarity with PrEP (46.2% Pharmacists vs. 16.7% Physicians; p < 0.01). A 53.6% of them would support the use of PrEP (49.7% Pharmacists vs. 69% Physicians; p = 0.038). The minimum acceptable efficacy in order to support PrEP was 85.0 ± 15.5% (82.6 ± 12.1% by Physicians vs. 85.6 ± 15.0% by Pharmacists; p = 0.02). The variables associated with support were: medical profession (OR = 2.26; 95%CI 1.1-4.6; p = 0.038) and lower demand for efficacy (difference = 10.5%; 95%CI 6.9 to 14.1; p < 0.001). After receiving the information, there was an increase in their support for use and indication approval. Most participants (81.5%) did not support its reimbursement. The main barriers identified were: an increase in risk behaviour (24.1%), increase in sexually transmitted diseases (19.0%), resistance (16.6%) and cost (16.0%). Conclusions: More than half of participants were familiar with PrEP. The majority of them would support its use and the approval of the indication, but would not reimburse it. The use of PrEP in real practice is currently low (AU)

Objetivo: Determinar el grado de apoyo, conocimientos y percepciones respecto a la profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) de los médicos infectólogos y farmacéuticos hospitalarios en España. Métodos: Estudio transversal mediante encuesta de 31 ítems (datos sociodemográficos, situación laboral/experiencia, conocimiento sobre PrEP, uso, opiniones, barreras detectadas y aspectos financieros). Se realizó un análisis univariante para evaluar las variables relacionadas con el apoyo a PrEP y comparar las valoraciones de médicos y farmacéuticos. Las preguntas sobre apoyo a la PrEP y el acuerdo sobre aprobar la indicación se repitieron tras mostrar datos de estudios publicados. Se analizó la significación del cambio en la respuesta mediante la prueba de McNemar. Resultados: Se recibieron 211 cuestionarios (80,1% farmacéuticos). El 40,3% estuvieron nada/poco familiarizados con la PrEP (46,2% farmacéuticos vs. 16,7% médicos; p < 0,01). El 53,6% apoyaría su uso (49,7% farmacéuticos vs. 69% médicos; p = 0,038). La eficacia mínima considerada aceptable fue 85,0 ± 15,5% (82,6 ± 12,1% médicos vs. 85,6 ± 15,0% farmacéuticos; p = 0,02). Las variables relacionadas con el apoyo fueron: profesión médica (OR = 2,26 IC95% 1,1-4,6; p = 0,038) y menor exigencia de eficacia (diferencia 10,5% IC95% 6,9-14,1; p < 0,001). Tras recibir la información, aumentaron el apoyo al uso y la aprobación. El 81,5% no apoyaron la financiación. Las principales barreras señaladas fueron: aumento de conductas de riesgo (24,1%), aumento de enfermedades de transmisión sexual (19,0%), resistencias (16,6%) y coste (16,0%). Conclusiones: Más de la mitad de los encuestados estaban familiarizados con la PrEP. La mayoría apoyaría su uso y la aprobación de la indicación, pero no la financiaría. El uso en la práctica real de la PrEP es escaso en la actualidad (AU)

Pirfenidone experience in mild-to-moderate Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in a General Hospital / Experiencia con pirfenidona en fibrosis pulmonar idiopática leve-moderada en un hospital general

This article present the experience and outcomes of patients treated with pirfenidone. FVC and DLCO parameters during 12 months were collected in patients treated with pirfenidone. Eight of the ten patients continued treatment until month 12. 7 patients presented at 12 months an adequate response treatment, 1 patient did not achieve therapeutic targets established (improvement or stability). At week 52, our patients had a mean of change in FVC(%) of -2.38±6.93%; patients of clinical trials showed -5.2% and -8.3% treated with pirfenidone and placebo respectively. Higher incidence of adverse effects was observed than clinical trials. Our results show that pirfenidone is a well-tolerated drug, whose toxicity can be controlled by dose adjustment, and it is effective in mild-moderate IPF. Due to no proven effectiveness and safety in medium / long term and the high economic impact, it is necessary to identify those patients who may get more clinical benefits (AU)

Este artículo presenta la experiencia y los resultados de pacientes tratados con pirfenidona. Se obtuvieron parámetros de FVC y DLCO durante 12 meses en pacientes tratados con pirfenidona. Ocho de los diez pacientes continuaron el tratamiento hasta el mes 12. 7 pacientes presentaron a los 12 meses un tratamiento de respuesta adecuada, 1 paciente no logró objetivos terapéuticos establecidos (mejoría o estabilidad). En la semana 52, nuestros pacientes tenían una media de cambio en FVC(%) de - 2.38±6.93%; los pacientes de los ensayos clínicos demostraron-5.2% y- 8.3% tratados con pirfenidona y placebo respectivamente. Se observó mayor incidencia de efectos adversos de los ensayos clínicos. Nuestros resultados muestran que pirfenidona es un fármaco bien tolerado, cuya toxicidad puede ser controlada mediante el ajuste de la dosis, y es eficaz en IPF de leve a moderada. Debido a la no probada eficacia y seguridad a medio/largo plazo y alto impacto económico, es necesario identificar a aquellos pacientes que pueden obtener mayores beneficios clínicos (AU)

Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12 primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitis C / Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: First 12 weeks of treatment

INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo es analizar la incidencia, el manejo y el coste asociado a los efectos adversos (EA) hematológicos y dermatológicos en pacientes con hepatitis C crónica en tratamiento con telaprevir (TVR) o boceprevir (BOC). MÉTODO: Estudio observacional y prospectivo de una cohorte de pacientes que iniciaron tratamiento con TVR o BOC asociado a peg-interferón-alfa y ribavirina con un seguimiento de 12 semanas. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 53 pacientes (TVR n = 36; BOC n = 17). Los EA más frecuentes fueron trombocitopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC), seguida de neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC). El 32% de los pacientes manifestaron EA dermatológicos. En 11 pacientes fue necesaria la suspensión del tratamiento (todos ellos tratados con TVR), siendo el motivo principal la toxicidad (64%). El 66% de los pacientes precisaron algún fármaco para el tratamiento de los EA, siendo la eritropoyetina el fármaco más empleado. En 8 pacientes fue necesaria asistencia de urgencia y 2 fueron hospitalizados debido a los EA. El coste total de los recursos adicionales fue de 32.522 Euros (625 [DE = 876] Euros/paciente) (TVR 759 [DE = 1.022] Euros/paciente vs. BOC 349 [DE = 327] Euros/paciente]; p > 0,05). Los pacientes con toxicidad grados iii-iv consumieron mayor número de recursos adicionales con mayor coste en comparación con los pacientes con toxicidad grados i-ii (849 [DE = 1.143] Euros/paciente vs. 387 [DE = 397] Euros/paciente; p = 0,053). CONCLUSIÓN: La incorporación de los nuevos inhibidores de proteasa al tratamiento convencional conlleva una mayor incidencia de EA hematológicos que la descrita en los ensayos clínicos. Esta elevada incidencia de EA hace necesaria la utilización de recursos adicionales que incrementan el coste total de la terapia

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n = 36; BOC n = 17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522 Euros (625 [SD = 876] Euros/patient) (TVR 759 [SD = 1,022] Euros/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD = 327] Euros/patient; P > .05). Patients with grade iii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with grade i-ii toxicity (849 [SD = 1,143] Euros/patient vs. 387 [SD = 397] Euros/patient; P = .053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy

Adherencia en pacientes en tratamiento crónico: resultados del 'Día de la Adherencia' del 2013 / Adherence in patients with chronic treatment: data of 'Adherence Day 2013'

Objetivo: Conocer el nivel de adherencia en pacientes en tratamiento crónico que acudieron al hospital el 15 de noviembre del 2013 en el marco del 'día de la adherencia' Métodos: Estudio trasversal, observacional, multicéntrico, realizado en 43 hospitales nacionales, para conocer el nivel de adherencia utilizando los cuestionarios de Haynes- Sackett y Morisky- Green, además de una escala analógica visual y preguntas relacionadas con la complejidad del tratamiento y la adherencia selectiva. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo y se calculó la concordancia entre los distintos métodos. Resultados: Se recogieron 723 encuestas principalmente en el área de pacientes externos, siendo el 43% de las encuestadas mujeres, con una mediana de edad de 51 años y tomando 3 medicamentos al día. Según el test de Haynes- Sackett, el 10,8% de los pacientes refirieron tener dificultades para tomar su tratamiento. En cambio, un 56,4% de los pacientes fueron cumplidores totales según el cuestionario de Morisky- Green, aunque al considerar únicamente la pregunta relacionada con la omisión de la toma, eran adherentes un 77% de los pacientes. Al aplicar la escala analógica visual, el 71% de los pacientes consideró su adherencia como buena, superior al 80%. Y un 11% de los pacientes presentaron una adherencia selectiva, refiriendo no tomar por igual todos los fármacos. El test de concordancia entre los distintos cuestionarios, considerando el cuestionario de Morisky- Green como Gold estándar, fue débil. Conclusión: En nuestro estudio solamente un 56% de los pacientes en tratamiento crónico presentaron un nivel de adherencia total o perfecto (AU)

Objetive: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the adherence level in chronic conditions patients during 'The Adherence Day' celebrated on November 15, 2013. Methods: We performed a transversal, observational and multicenter study at 43 Spanish hospitals, in order to estimate adherence in chronic treatments. We used the validated questionnaires Haynes- Sackett and Morisky- Green to measure medication adherence; but also a visual analogue scale and questions related with treatment complexity and selective adherence were applied. We performed a descriptive analysis and the closeness of agreement between questionnaires results. Results: A total of 723 surveys were collected especially among outpatients. 43% of the participants were women, with a median age of 51 and taking 3 drugs per day. 10.8% of the patients reported to have difficulty taking their pills according to Haynes- Sackett test. However, depending on Morisky- Green questionnaire, 56.4% of the participants were totally compliant; but considering only the question about forgetfulness, more were adherents (77%). 71% of the patients considered their compliance level as good (more than 8) according to visual analogue scale. And 11% presented a selective adherence, no taking equally well all the medications. The closeness of agreement between questionnaires and Morisky- Green test, as gold standard, was poor for Haynes- Sackett and weak for visual analogue scale. Conclusions: In our study only 56% of the patients with chronic treatment had a perfect adherence (AU)

[Adherence in patients with chronic treatment: data of "adherence day 2013"]. / Adherencia en pacientes en tratamiento crónico: resultados del "Día de la Adherencia" del 2013.

OBJETIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the adherence level in chronic conditions patients during "The Adherence Day" celebrated on November 15, 2013. METHODS: We performed a transversal, observational and multicenter study at 43 Spanish hospitals, in order to estimate adherence in chronic treatments. We used the validated questionnaires Haynes- Sackett and Morisky- Green to measure medication adherence; but also a visual analogue scale and questions related with treatment complexity and selective adherence were applied. We performed a descriptive analysis and the closeness of agreement between questionnaires results. RESULTS: A total of 723 surveys were collected especially among outpatients. 43% of the participants were women, with a median age of 51 and taking 3 drugs per day. 10.8% of the patients reported to have difficulty taking their pills according to Haynes- Sackett test. However, depending on Morisky- Green questionnaire, 56.4% of the participants were totally compliant; but considering only the question about forgetfulness, more were adherents (77%). 71% of the patients considered their compliance level as good (more than 8) according to visual analogue scale. And 11% presented a selective adherence, no taking equally well all the medications. The closeness of agreement between questionnaires and Morisky- Green test, as gold standard, was poor for Haynes- Sackett and weak for visual analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: In our study only 56% of the patients with chronic treatment had a perfect adherence.

Objetivo: Conocer el nivel de adherencia en pacientes en tratamiento crónico que acudieron al hospital el 15 de noviembre del 2013 en el marco del "día de la adherencia" Métodos: Estudio trasversal, observacional, multicéntrico, realizado en 43 hospitales nacionales, para conocer el nivel de adherencia utilizando los cuestionarios de Haynes- Sackett y Morisky- Green, además de una escala analógica visual y preguntas relacionadas con la complejidad del tratamiento y la adherencia selectiva. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo y se calculó la concordancia entre los distintos métodos. Resultados: Se recogieron 723 encuestas principalmente en el área de pacientes externos, siendo el 43% de las encuestadas mujeres, con una mediana de edad de 51 años y tomando 3 medicamentos al día. Según el test de Haynes- Sackett, el 10,8% de los pacientes refirieron tener dificultades para tomar su tratamiento. En cambio, un 56,4% de los pacientes fueron cumplidores totales según el cuestionario de Morisky- Green, aunque al considerar únicamente la pregunta relacionada con la omisión de la toma, eran adherentes un 77% de los pacientes. Al aplicar la escala analógica visual, el 71% de los pacientes consideró su adherencia como buena, superior al 80%. Y un 11% de los pacientes presentaron una adherencia selectiva, refiriendo no tomar por igual todos los fármacos. El test de concordancia entre los distintos cuestionarios, considerando el cuestionario de Morisky- Green como Gold estándar, fue débil. Conclusión: En nuestro estudio solamente un 56% de los pacientes en tratamiento crónico presentaron un nivel de adherencia total o perfecto.

[Incidence, management and costs of adverse effects in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir: first 12 weeks of treatment]. / Incidencia, manejo y coste de los efectos adversos hematológicos y dermatológicos durante las 12primeras semanas de tratamiento con triple terapia para hepatitisC.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to analyze the incidence, management and cost associated to hematological and dermatological adverse effects (AE) in chronic hepatitis C patients on triple therapy (TT) with telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). METHODS: An analysis was made on the data recorded on patients who started treatment with TVR or BOC associated with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin in a 12-week follow-up period. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included (TVR n=36; BOC n=17). Thrombocytopenia (83% TVR vs. 88% BOC) followed by neutropenia (89% TVR vs. 82% BOC) were the most common AE. Dermatological AE were observed in 32% of patients. Eleven patients required treatment discontinuation (all of them received TVR), and toxicity was the main reason for discontinuation (64%). The percentage of patients who required supportive treatment for management of AE was 66%. The most used supportive treatment was erythropoietin. Eight patients required emergency health care, and 2 were hospitalized due to AE. Total cost of additional supportive resources was 32,522€ (625 [SD=876]€/patient) (TVR 759 [SD=1,022]€/patient vs. BOC 349 [SD=327]€/patient; P>.05). Patients with gradeiii-iv toxicity required greater supportive care with higher costs, compared to patients with gradei-ii toxicity (849 [SD=1,143]€/patient vs. 387 [SD=397]€/patient; P=.053). CONCLUSION: The addition of new protease inhibitors to conventional treatment leads to a higher incidence of hematological AE in our study, compared to data described in clinical trials. The elevated incidence of AE involves the use of supportive care, increasing total costs of therapy.

[Single preoperative dose of metronidazole plus gentamicin for antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery]. / Dosis única preoperatoria de metronidazol más gentamicina para profilaxis antibiótica en cirugía colorrectal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To prove that a single-preoperative dose (SD) of metronidazole plus gentamicin guarantees the same clinical effectiveness than the same dose administered in a multiple-perioperative schedule (MD), with a reduction of the direct costs. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A retrospective cohort study with patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 1995 and 2003 was designed. Patients in the cohort of cases received a SD of metronidazole 1500 mg plus gentamicin 240 mg between 1999 and 2003. Patients included in the cohort of controls received the same dose of antibiotics in a MD schedule between 1995 and 1997. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated as length of stay, mortality and rate of surgical-related infections. Economic analysis was performed using direct costs of therapy exclusively. RESULTS: 414 patients were included in the cohort of MD and 978 were included in the cohort of SD. Total length of stay (standard deviation) was 15.1 (16.2 days), with a significant reduction in the SD cohort versus the MD cohort: 14.0 (15.4) days versus 17.5 (17.8) days (p < 0.001). No differences in mortality (overall rate 3.2%) or surgical infection rate (overall rate 8.6%) between cohorts were found. SD schedule produces a 35% cost-reduction per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Attending the clinical effectiveness, no differences between SD and MD cohorts were found. Therefore, according to logistics advantages and costs reduction, the SD of antibiotic is considered the most efficient option.

Dosis única preoperatoria de metronidazol más gentamicina para profilaxis antibiótica en cirugía colorrectal / Single preoperative dose of metronidazole plus gentamicin for antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery

Fundamento y objetivo: El propósito del estudio ha sido demostrar que una dosis única (DU) preoperatoria de la mezcla metronidazol-gentamicina garantiza una efectividad similar a la obtenida por los mismos antibióticos en dosis múltiple (DM) perioperatoria, acompañada de una reducción de costes directos. Pacientes y método: Se ha realizado un estudio retrospectivo de cohortes en pacientes a quienes se practicó cirugía colorrectal programada entre 1995 y 2003. Los pacientes de la cohorte objeto de estudio recibieron como pauta profiláctica una mezcla de 1.500 mg de metronidazol y 240 mg de gentamicina en DU preoperatoria entre 1999 y 2003. Los controles recibieron los mismo antibióticos en un esquema de DM perioperatoria entre 1995 y 1997. La efectividad clínica se evaluó mediante el análisis de la estancia hospitalaria, la mortalidad y las complicaciones infecciosas. El análisis económico contempló exclusivamente los costes directos del tratamiento. Resultados: Se incluyó a 414 pacientes en la cohorte de DM y a 978 en la de DU. La estancia media (desviación estándar) total fue de 15,1 (16,2) días, con una reducción significativa de la estancia en la cohorte de DU respecto a la de DM: 14,0 (15,4) frente a 17,5 (17,8) días (p < 0,001). No se observaron diferencias en la mortalidad de ambas cohortes (mortalidad global del 3,2%) ni en la incidencia acumulada de infección posquirúrgica (incidencia global del 8,6%). El esquema en DU supuso una reducción del coste por procedimiento del 35%. Conclusiones: Desde el punto de vista clínico no se aprecian diferencias entre las cohortes de DU y DM. Por tanto, las ventajas logísticas y la reducción de costes hacen de la profilaxis en DU la opción más eficiente

Background and objective: To prove that a single-preoperative dose (SD) of metronidazole plus gentamicin guarantees the same clinical effectiveness than the same dose administered in a multiple-perioperative schedule (MD), with a reduction of the direct costs. Patients and method: A retrospective cohort study with patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery between 1995 and 2003 was designed. Patients in the cohort of cases received a SD of metronidazole 1500 mg plus gentamicin 240 mg between 1999 and 2003. Patients included in the cohort of controls received the same dose of antibiotics in a MD schedule between 1995 and 1997. Clinical effectiveness was evaluated as length of stay, mortality and rate of surgical-related infections. Economic analysis was performed using direct costs of therapy exclusively. Results: 414 patients were included in the cohort of MD and 978 were included in the cohort of SD. Total length of stay (standard deviation) was 15.1 (16.2 days), with a significant reduction in the SD cohort versus the MD cohort: 14.0 (15.4) days versus 17.5 (17.8) days (p < 0.001). No differences in mortality (overall rate 3.2%) or surgical infection rate (overall rate 8.6%) between cohorts were found. SD schedule produces a 35% cost-reduction per procedure. Conclusions: Attending the clinical effectiveness, no differences between SD and MD cohorts were found. Therefore, according to logistics advantages and costs reduction, the SD of antibiotic is considered the most efficient option