Hospitalization budget impact during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine the direct impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Spain's health budget. METHODS: Budget impact analyses based on retrospective data from patients with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) admitted to a Spanish hospital between February 26 and May 21, 2020. Direct medical costs from the perspective of the hospital were calculated. We analyzed diagnostic tests, drugs, medical and nursing care, and isolation ward and ICU stays for three cohorts: patients seen in the emergency room only, hospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and patients who tested negative. RESULTS: The impact on the hospital's budget for the 3 months was calculated at €15,633,180, 97.4% of which was related to health care and hospitalization. ICU stays accounted for 5.3% of the total costs. The mean cost per patient was €10,744. The main costs were staffing costs (10,131 to 11,357 €/patient for physicians and 10,274 to 11,215 €/patient for nurses). Scenario analysis showed that the range of hospital expenditure was between €14,693,256 and €16,524,924. The median impact of the pandemic on the Spanish health budget in the sensitivity analysis using bootstrapped individual data was €9357 million (interquartile range [IQR], 9071 to 9689) for the conservative scenario (113,588 hospital admissions and 11,664 ICU admissions) and €10,385 million (IQR, 110,030 to 10,758) for the worst-case scenario (including suspected cases). CONCLUSION: The impact of COVID-19 on the Spanish public health budget (12.3% of total public health expenditure) is greater than multiple sclerosis, cancer and diabetes cost.

Efficacy and adverse effects of collagenase use in the treatment of Dupuytren's disease: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of collagenase clostridium histolyticum compared with fasciectomy and percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PNF) for Dupuytren's disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane, Teseo and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for clinical trials and cohort or case-control studies which compared the clinical outcomes and adverse effects of collagenase with those of fasciectomy or PNF. Of 1345 articles retrieved, ten were selected. They described the outcomes of 425 patients treated with collagenase and 418 treated by fasciectomy or PNF. Complications were assessed using inverse-variance weighted odds ratios (ORs). Clinical efficacy was assessed by differences between the means for movement of the joint before and after treatment. Dose adjustment was applied in all cases. RESULTS: Random-effects modelling showed that patients treated with collagenase had 3.24 increased odds of adverse effects compared with those treated by fasciectomy (OR 4.39) or PNF (OR 1.72,). The effect was lost when only major complications were assessed. Joint movement analysis revealed a difference between means of less than 10%, indicating equivalent clinical efficacy in the short and medium term for collagenase and fasciectomy. We were unable to analyse this for PNF due to a shortage of data. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in effect size between collagenase and fasciectomy. The use of collagenase was associated with a higher overall risk of adverse effects than both fasciectomy and PNF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:73-80.