A Review and Follow-Up of Uterine Smooth Muscle Tumours of Uncertain Malignant Potential (STUMP): A Case Series and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: to analyse the clinical-pathological characteristics, treatment, and evolution of uterine smooth muscle tumours with uncertain malignant potential (STUMP) diagnosed in the Salamanca University Hospital with the implementation of the 2014 WHO criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: a retrospective descriptive study of patients diagnosed with STUMP from January 2015 to March 2023 at the Salamanca University Hospital. Demographic data, preoperative clinical data, treatment, complications, therapeutic results, anatomopathological findings and recurrence time were obtained. RESULTS: a total of four patients were identified and included in the study. The mean age at diagnosis was 48 years (range 36-67). The surgical indications were abnormal uterine bleeding, compressive symptoms, and the growth of a pelvic mass suspected to be a degenerated myoma from the residual cervix after a subtotal hysterectomy 6 years earlier. In all cases, a laparotomic procedure was performed. A total hysterectomy, sub-total hysterectomy, and the excision of the cervix with STUMP localization were accomplished in two, one, and one patient, respectively. The mean diameter of the tumour pieces was 13 cm (range 8-17 cm), with a mean volume of 816 cc (range 234-1467 cc). The mean follow-up was 47 months, with no recurrence to date. CONCLUSIONS: STUMPs are a heterogeneous group of tumours with a difficult-to-predict clinical evolution. In most cases, their diagnosis is histological after performing surgery for suspected leiomyoma. Due to their low incidence, there are no specific guidelines for their treatment and control. However, considering their potential risk of recurrence and metastasis, it is advisable to maintain six-monthly controls for 5 years and then annual controls for 5 years more.

Síndrome de Ehlers-Danlos de tipo IV: a propósito de un caso / Ehlers-Danlos syndrome type IV: Presentation of a case

No disponible

Análisis del impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud de la combinación fija de amlodipino 5 o 10mg y atorvastatina 10mg / Analysis of the budget impact for the Spanish National Health System of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 or 10mg and atorvastatin 10mg

Objetivo Realizar un análisis de impacto presupuestario (AIP) de la introducción en la prestación sanitaria del sistema nacional de salud (SNS) de la combinación fija (CF) de amlodipino 5 o 10mg y atorvastatina 10mg en la indicación aprobada. Material y métodos El AIP se ha realizado desde la perspectiva del SNS para un periodo de 3 años (2009–2011). Se ha diseñado un modelo de decisión tipo árbol (árbol de pacientes) construido a partir de datos epidemiológicos y la literatura científica para estimar la población hipertensa susceptible de tratamiento con la CF. El AIP, por año y en total, se ha calculado imputando el coste a PVP-IVA de la CF al número de pacientes a tratar, del que se sustrae el coste del tratamiento antihipertensivo que se sustituye y el coste por paciente promedio actualizado de los eventos cardiovasculares prevenidos para el SNS por el uso de la CF en el periodo de referencia. Resultados La población susceptible de tratamiento con la CF es de 51.104 pacientes (1.er año), con una tasa de crecimiento entre 1–2% en los sucesivos años, lo que supone un coste (€) anual de 15,9M (2009), 19,9M (2010) y 24,1M (2011), totalizando 60,0M. El AIP se ve compensado mostrando valores de impacto negativo para el SNS cuando se descuentan los costes del tratamiento antihipertensivo sustituido y eventos cardiovasculares prevenidos, mostrando un ahorro de 69,9M € en 3 años. Conclusión El AIP de la CF de atorvastatina y amlodipino muestra que su uso en la indicación aprobada podría generar ahorros netos para el SNS en el periodo 2009–2011 de 9,9M (AU)

Objective To carry out a Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) of the inclusion of the administration, within the Spanish National Health System (SNS), of the fixed combination (FC) of amlodipine 5 or 10mg and atorvastatin 10mg for approved indications. Materials and Methods A BIA was carried out from the SNS perspective for a 3 year period (2009–2011). A tree type decision model was designed (tree of patients), based on epidemiological data and scientific literature, to estimate the hypertensive population that could be treated with a FC. The total per annum BIA was calculated by attributing the retail price- VAT of the FC to the number of patients to be treated, and deducting the cost of the treatment for hypertension that was replaced and the updated average cost per patient of cardiovascular events (CVEs) prevented by the use of the FC by the SNS during the period of study. Results The patient population susceptible to treatment with the FC was 51,104 patients (1st year), with a growth rate of between 1–2% over the following years, which means an annual cost (€) of 15.9M (2009), 19.9M (2010) and 24.1M (2011), with a total of 60.0M. The BIA was compensated showing negative impact values for the SNS when the cost of replaced antihypertensive treatment and prevented CVEs was deducted, with savings of €69.9M over 3 years. Conclusion The BIA of a FC of atorvastatin and amlodipine shows that the use of this medication for approved indications could generate net savings for the SNS of €9.9M for the period 2009–2011 (AU)

[Assessment of the efficiency of the clinical management of neuropathic pain in specialist clinics compared to general clinics in neurology health care units in Spain]. / Evaluación de la eficiencia del manejo clínico del dolor neuropático en consultas especializadas frente a consultas generales en unidades asistenciales de neurología en España.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the cost-consequences of chronic neuropathic pain (NeP) outpatients care comparing management in general clinics (GC) versus specialised pain clinics (SPC) in neurology settings in Spain. METHODS: A 6-month retrospective, cross-sectional, comparative observational study including NeP subjects was designed. Sociodemographics and clinical characteristics of subjects along with pain-related healthcare and non healthcare resources utilization were recorded. Lost-work-days equivalent missed as a consequence of pain were also collected to compute indirect costs. Costs to society were calculated in euros for the year 2008. Severity and interference of pain were used for the main effectiveness evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients (53% in SPC), 56.8% women, and 59.3+/-14.7 years were included. Patients were allocated according to usual administrative procedures in each participant centre, consecutively and independently of the diagnosis and clinical status of patients. Yearly indirect costs were euro1,299+/-2,804 in SPC compared to euro1,483+/-3,452 in GC (p=0.660), while annual direct costs were, euro2,911+/-3,335 and euro3,563+/-4,797, respectively (p=0.239), with total costs of euro4,210+/-4,654 and euro5,060+/-6,250, respectively (p=0.249). Mean pain severity at the time of evaluation was 3.8+/-2.3 in subjects in SPC vs. 5.2+/-2 in GC (p<0.001), while the average interference of pain on daily activities were 3.3+/-2 and 4.7+/-2.5, respectively (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In neurology settings in Spain, the outpatient clinical management of chronic NeP in SPC was a dominant alternative compared with GC healthcare, since it has shown better patients healthcare outcomes with less severity and interference of pain on daily activities, while maintaining a similar level of costs. These results could help health decision makers when planning the use of health care resources.

Evaluación de la eficiencia del manejo clínico del dolor neuropático en consultas especializadas frente a consultas generales en unidades asistenciales de neurología en España / Assessment of the efficiency of the clinical management of neuropathic pain in specialist clinics compared to general clinics in neurology health care Units in Spain

Objetivo: Evaluar la eficiencia del seguimiento clínico del dolor crónico neuropático (DN) en consultas especializadas (CE) frente a consultas generales (CG) en unidades asistenciales de neurología (UAN) en España. Métodos: Estudio transversal y retrospectivo, de 6 meses, observacional y comparativo, que incluyó a pacientes con DN. Se recogió: situación laboral, nivel educativo, historia clínica, comorbilidad concomitante, capacidad funcional y utilización de recursos sanitarios y no sanitarios. Los costes indirectos incluyeron los equivalentes de días de trabajo perdidos como consecuencia del DN. El coste se computó desde la perspectiva de la sociedad en el año 2008. Como medida de efectividad primaria se registraron la intensidad y la interferencia del dolor en las actividades de la vida diaria.Resultados: Se incluyó a 234 pacientes (el 53% en CE); el 56,8% eran mujeres, y la media de edad era 59,3±14,7 años. La asignación de pacientes se realizó según criterios asistenciales de forma consecutiva e independiente del diagnóstico y el estado clínico del paciente. El coste indirecto anual de los pacientes en CE fue de 1.299±2.804 euros frente a 1.483±3.452 euros en CG (p=0,660), mientras que los costes directos fueron, respectivamente, 2.911±3.335 euros y 3.563±4.797 euros (p=0,239), con unos costes totales de 4.210±4.654 euros y 5.060±6.250 euros (p=0,249). La puntuación media en la intensidad del dolor fue de 3,8±2,3 en CE y 5,2±2 en CG (p<0,001), mientras que la interferencia del dolor con las actividades diarias fue, respectivamente, de 3,3±2 y 4,7±2,5 (p<0,001). Conclusiones: El seguimiento clínico del DN en CE es una alternativa dominante cuando se compara con las CG en UAN en España, al asociarse a mejores resultados clínicos con menor intensidad del dolor e interferencia con las actividades diarias mientras se mantiene un coste similar (AU)

Objectives: To analyse the cost-consequences of chronic neuropathic pain (NeP) outpatients care comparing management in general clinics (GC) versus specialised pain clinics (SPC) in neurology settings in Spain.Methods: A 6-month retrospective, cross-sectional, comparative observational study including NeP subjects was designed. Sociodemographics and clinical characteristics of subjects along with pain-related healthcare and non healthcare resources utilization were recorded. Lost-work-days equivalent missed as a consequence of pain were also collected to compute indirect costs. Costs to society were calculated in euros for the year 2008. Severity and interference of pain were used for the main effectiveness evaluation.Results: A total of 234 patients (53% in SPC), 56.8% women, and 59.3±14.7 years were included. Patients were allocated according to usual administrative procedures in each participant centre, consecutively and independently of the diagnosis and clinical status of patients. Yearly indirect costs were €1,299±2,804 in SPC compared to €1,483±3,452 in GC (p=0.660), while annual direct costs were, €2,911±3,335 and €3,563±4,797, respectively (p=0.239), with total costs of €4,210±4,654 and €5,060±6,250, respectively (p=0.249). Mean pain severity at the time of evaluation was 3.8±2.3 in subjects in SPC vs. 5.2±2 in GC (p<0.001), while the average interference of pain on daily activities were 3.3±2 and 4.7±2.5, respectively (p<0.001).Conclusions: In neurology settings in Spain, the outpatient clinical management of chronic NeP in SPC was a dominant alternative compared with GC healthcare, since it has shown better patients healthcare outcomes with less severity and interference of pain on daily activities, while maintaining a similar level of costs. These results could help health decision makers when planning the use of health care resources (AU)

[Analysis of the budget impact for the Spanish National Health System of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 or 10mg and atorvastatin 10mg]. / Análisis del impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud de la combinación fija de amlodipino 5 o 10mg y atorvastatina 10mg.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) of the inclusion of the administration, within the Spanish National Health System (SNS), of the fixed combination (FC) of amlodipine 5 or 10mg and atorvastatin 10mg for approved indications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A BIA was carried out from the SNS perspective for a 3 year period (2009-2011). A tree type decision model was designed (tree of patients), based on epidemiological data and scientific literature, to estimate the hypertensive population that could be treated with a FC. The total per annum BIA was calculated by attributing the retail price- VAT of the FC to the number of patients to be treated, and deducting the cost of the treatment for hypertension that was replaced and the updated average cost per patient of cardiovascular events (CVEs) prevented by the use of the FC by the SNS during the period of study. RESULTS: The patient population susceptible to treatment with the FC was 51,104 patients (1(st) year), with a growth rate of between 1-2% over the following years, which means an annual cost (euro) of 15.9M (2009), 19.9M (2010) and 24.1M (2011), with a total of 60.0M. The BIA was compensated showing negative impact values for the SNS when the cost of replaced antihypertensive treatment and prevented CVEs was deducted, with savings of euro69.9M over 3 years. CONCLUSION: The BIA of a FC of atorvastatin and amlodipine shows that the use of this medication for approved indications could generate net savings for the SNS of euro9.9M for the period 2009-2011.