Is it possible to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units and general wards using clinical and telemedicine data?

BACKGROUND: Gabaldi et al. utilized telemedicine data, web search trends, hospitalized patient characteristics, and resource usage data to estimate bed occupancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showcase the potential of data-driven strategies to enhance resource allocation decisions for an effective pandemic response. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate predictive models to estimate the number of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the intensive care units and general wards of a private not-for-profit hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Two main models were developed. The first model calculated hospital occupation as the difference between predicted COVID-19 patient admissions, transfers between departments, and discharges, estimating admissions based on their weekly moving averages, segmented by general wards and intensive care units. Patient discharge predictions were based on a length of stay predictive model, assessing the clinical characteristics of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, including age group and usage of mechanical ventilation devices. The second model estimated hospital occupation based on the correlation with the number of telemedicine visits by patients diagnosed with COVID-19, utilizing correlational analysis to define the lag that maximized the correlation between the studied series. Both models were monitored for 365 days, from May 20th, 2021, to May 20th, 2022. RESULTS: The first model predicted the number of hospitalized patients by department within an interval of up to 14 days. The second model estimated the total number of hospitalized patients for the following 8 days, considering calls attended by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein's telemedicine department. Considering the average daily predicted values for the intensive care unit and general ward across a forecast horizon of 8 days, as limited by the second model, the first and second models obtained R² values of 0.900 and 0.996, respectively and mean absolute errors of 8.885 and 2.524 beds, respectively. The performances of both models were monitored using the mean error, mean absolute error, and root mean squared error as a function of the forecast horizon in days. CONCLUSION: The model based on telemedicine use was the most accurate in the current analysis and was used to estimate COVID-19 hospital occupancy 8 days in advance, validating predictions of this nature in similar clinical contexts. The results encourage the expansion of this method to other pathologies, aiming to guarantee the standards of hospital care and conscious consumption of resources. BACKGROUND: Developed models to forecast bed occupancy for up to 14 days and monitored errors for 365 days. BACKGROUND: Telemedicine calls from COVID-19 patients correlated with the number of patients hospitalized in the next 8 days.

Is it possible to estimate the number of patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units and general wards using clinical and telemedicine data?

ABSTRACT Objective: To develop and validate predictive models to estimate the number of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the intensive care units and general wards of a private not-for-profit hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Methods: Two main models were developed. The first model calculated hospital occupation as the difference between predicted COVID-19 patient admissions, transfers between departments, and discharges, estimating admissions based on their weekly moving averages, segmented by general wards and intensive care units. Patient discharge predictions were based on a length of stay predictive model, assessing the clinical characteristics of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, including age group and usage of mechanical ventilation devices. The second model estimated hospital occupation based on the correlation with the number of telemedicine visits by patients diagnosed with COVID-19, utilizing correlational analysis to define the lag that maximized the correlation between the studied series. Both models were monitored for 365 days, from May 20th, 2021, to May 20th, 2022. Results: The first model predicted the number of hospitalized patients by department within an interval of up to 14 days. The second model estimated the total number of hospitalized patients for the following 8 days, considering calls attended by Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein's telemedicine department. Considering the average daily predicted values for the intensive care unit and general ward across a forecast horizon of 8 days, as limited by the second model, the first and second models obtained R² values of 0.900 and 0.996, respectively and mean absolute errors of 8.885 and 2.524 beds, respectively. The performances of both models were monitored using the mean error, mean absolute error, and root mean squared error as a function of the forecast horizon in days. Conclusion: The model based on telemedicine use was the most accurate in the current analysis and was used to estimate COVID-19 hospital occupancy 8 days in advance, validating predictions of this nature in similar clinical contexts. The results encourage the expansion of this method to other pathologies, aiming to guarantee the standards of hospital care and conscious consumption of resources.

Cost-effectiveness of a second opinion program on spine surgeries: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this study we proposed a new strategy to measure cost-effectiveness of second opinion program on spine surgery, using as measure of effectiveness the minimal important change (MIC) in the quality of life reported by patients, including the satisfaction questionnaire regarding the treatment and direct medical costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with prior indication for spine surgery included in a second opinion program during May 2011 to May 2019. Treatment costs and outcomes were compared considering each patients' recommended treatment before and after the second opinion. Costs were measured under the perspective of the hospital, including hospital stay, surgical room, physician and staff fees and other costs related to hospitalization when surgery was performed and physiotherapy or injection costs when a conservative treatment was recommended. Reoperation costs were also included. For comparison analysis, we used data based on our clinical practice, using data from patients who underwent the same type of surgical procedure as recommended by the first referral. The measure of effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved the MIC in quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-3 L 2 years after starting treatment. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. RESULTS: Based upon the assessment of 1,088 patients that completed the entire second opinion process, conservative management was recommended for 662 (60.8%) patients; 49 (4.5%) were recommended to injection and 377 (34.7%) to surgery. Complex spine surgery, as arthrodesis, was recommended by second opinion in only 3.7% of cases. The program resulted in financial savings of -$6,705 per patient associated with appropriate treatment indication, with an incremental effectiveness of 0.077 patients achieving MIC when compared to the first referral, resulting in an ICER of $-87,066 per additional patient achieving the MIC, ranging between $-273,016 and $-41,832. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of treatment, the second opinion program demonstrated the potential for cost-offsets associated with improved quality of life.

Impact of a quality programme on overindication of surgeries for endometriosis and cholecystectomies.

Approximately 45% of patients receive medical services with minimal or no benefit (low-value care). In addition to the increasing costs to the health system, performing invasive procedures without an indication poses a potentially preventable risk to patient safety. This study aimed to determine whether a managed quality improvement programme could prevent cholecystectomy and surgery for endometriosis treatment with minimal or no benefit to patients.This before-and-after study was conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, which has a main medical remuneration model of fee for service. All patients who underwent cholecystectomy or surgery for endometriosis between 1 August 2020 and 31 May 2021 were evaluated.The intervention consisted of allowing the performance of procedures that met previously defined criteria or for which the indications were validated by a board of experts.A total of 430 patients were included in this analysis. The programme prevented the unnecessary performance of 13% of cholecystectomies (p=0.0001) and 22.2% (p=0.0006) of surgeries for the treatment of endometriosis. This resulted in an estimated annual cost reduction to the health system of US$466 094.93.In a hospital with a private practice and fee-for-service medical remuneration, the definition of clear criteria for indicating surgery and the analysis of cases that did not meet these criteria by a board of reputable experts at the institution resulted in a statistically significant reduction in low-value cholecystectomies and endometriosis surgeries.

Longer-term effectiveness of a heterologous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster in healthcare workers in Brazil.

Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. CONCLUSION: In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Risk factors for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long COVID) among healthcare personnel, Brazil, 2020-2022.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Effectiveness of two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types. RESULTS: In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

Effectiveness of Heterologous Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Booster Dosing in Brazilian Healthcare Workers, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Prevalence, predictors, and patient-reported outcomes of long COVID in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients from the city of São Paulo, Brazil.

Background: Robust data comparing long COVID in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients in middle-income countries are limited. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Brazil, including hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Long COVID was diagnosed at 90-day follow-up using WHO criteria. Demographic and clinical information, including the depression screening scale (PHQ-2) at day 30, was compared between the groups. If the PHQ-2 score is 3 or greater, major depressive disorder is likely. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors and protective factors for long COVID. Results: A total of 291 hospitalized and 1,118 non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. The prevalence of long COVID was 47.1% and 49.5%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression showed female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 4.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51-8.37), hypertension (OR = 2.90, 95% CI 1.52-5.69), PHQ-2 > 3 (OR = 6.50, 95% CI 1.68-33.4) and corticosteroid use during hospital stay (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.20-5.04) as predictors of long COVID in hospitalized patients, while female sex (OR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.95-3.27) and PHQ-2 > 3 (OR = 3.88, 95% CI 2.52-6.16) were predictors in non-hospitalized patients. Conclusion: Long COVID was prevalent in both groups. Positive depression screening at day 30 post-infection can predict long COVID. Early screening of depression helps health staff to identify patients at a higher risk of long COVID, allowing an early diagnosis of the condition.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT Objective To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. Conclusion In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Stage-Related Cost of Treatment of Bladder Cancer in Brazil.

PURPOSE: Bladder cancer is the ninth most frequent cancer worldwide with the twelfth highest incidence. However, its treatment has financial impacts that directly affect health burden. There is a scarcity of data about the costs related to healthcare in Brazil, especially in the public setting. As previously demonstrated, despite not being one of the most frequent cancers, bladder cancer appears to be one of the most expensive. The present study aimed to assess the costs related to the treatment of bladder cancer in the public setting in Brazil. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective data of patients treated for urothelial bladder carcinoma from 2019 to 2020 were retrieved at a single center. All charts were reviewed, with the assessment of clinical data, exams, surgical data, and post-procedure outcomes. The hospital finance department calculated the costs for outpatient evaluation, inpatient procedures, complementary exams, materials, drugs, and professionals' fees throughout all operations. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with bladder cancer were analyzed, representing a total expenditure of BRL 5,671,042.70 and a mean cost of BRL 53,000.04 per patient (US$1.00 = BRL 5.60). Median costs were progressively higher for patients with stages I, II, III, and IV. Patients who underwent radical cystectomy (n = 14) had a median treatment cost of BRL 136,606.25 ± 96,059.08, during a mean follow-up of 9.2 months. Hospitalization costs represented 25% (range 20-43% according to the stage) of all expenditure. Medications and medical supplies represented 18% (16-23% according to the stage) of expenditure. Medical fees represented 31% of costs for stage I disease, but only 4% in stage II, III, and IV. Costs associated with emergency room visits were only observed in stage III and IV disease, representing 1% of all expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: The management of bladder cancer resulted in a significant economic burden on our public health system. The costs associated with stage I bladder cancer were 4-12 times higher than those related to the treatment of other common malignancies at initial stages. Treatment was also expensive during the first months with more advanced stages.

Modelo de terapia assistida para dispensação de medicamentos imunobiológicos para artrite reumatoide no Sistema Único de Saúde: uso racional de recursos reduz despesas / Assisted therapy model for dispensing immunobiological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis by the Brazilian Unified Health System: rational use of resources reduces expenses

Objetivo: A incorporação dos imunobiológicos para tratamento da artrite reumatoide (AR) no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) representou um avanço significativo, porém teve um impacto importante no orçamento. Como o modelo vigente de dispensação direta ao paciente apresentava deficiências, implementou-se o modelo do CEDMAC de terapia assistida com foco no uso racional, visando minimizar despesas e potencializar o alcance. Entretanto, não há dados que comparem os dois modelos. Assim, esse estudo objetivou comparar o número de frascos efetivamente dispensados pelo modelo do CEDMAC à dispensação direta e avaliar seu impacto financeiro. Métodos: Foram incluídos atendimentos de pacientes com AR no CEDMAC em 2015, cujo imunobiológico foi fornecido pelo Ministério da Saúde. Foram registrados medicamento e dose recebidos, dose prescrita, número de frascos, cancelamentos por contraindicação e faltas. Como comparação, foi estimado o número de frascos que seriam entregues pela dispensação direta. Calculou-se a diferença entre o número total de frascos dispensados pelos dois sistemas e o impacto financeiro pelo valor de aquisição em 2015. Resultados: Em 2015, o CEDMAC realizou 3.784 atendimentos para pacientes com AR. O total de frascos de imunobiológicos prescritos foi de 10.000 frascos e 1.946 (19,5%) não foram utilizados por otimização de frascos, contraindicações ou absenteísmo. Os frascos não utilizados reduziram as despesas em R$ 806.132,62. A expansão do modelo para todo SUS reduziria as despesas em R$ 121.110.388,27. Conclusão: O modelo de terapia assistida do CEDMAC reduz consideravelmente o volume de frascos dispensados e pode trazer uma relevante redução de despesas no fornecimento dos imunobiológicos para AR no SUS.

Objective: The incorporation of immunobiologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) represented a significant advance but had an important impact on the budget. As the current model of direct delivery to the patient presented deficiencies, the CEDMAC model of assisted therapy focusing on rational use was implemented to minimize expenses and increase access. However, there is no data comparing the two models. Thus, this study aimed to compare the number of vials effectively dispensed by the CEDMAC model compared to direct delivery and to evaluate its financial impact. Methods: We included RA patients attended at CEDMAC during 2015, whose immunobiological was provided by Ministry of Health. Drug and dose received, prescribed dose, number of vials, cancellations due to contraindication and absences were recorded. As comparison, the number of vials that would be delivered by the direct delivery model were estimated. Savings were calculated by the difference between the total number of vials dispensed by the two systems and the financial impact by acquisition value in 2015. Results: During 2015, CEDMAC performed 3,784 consultations for RA patients. The total number of immunobiological vials prescribed was 10,000 vials and 1,946 (19.5%) were not used for vial optimization, contraindications or absenteeism. Saved vials reduced expenses by R$ 806,132.62. The expansion of the model for all SUS would reduce expenses by R$ 121,110,388.27. Conclusion: CEDMAC's model of assisted therapy considerably reduces the volume of dispensed vials and can bring significant cost offsets in the supply of RA immunobiologicals by SUS.

Assisted therapy model for dispensing immunobiological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis by the Brazilian Unified Health System: rational use of resources reduces expenses

Objective: The incorporation of immunobiological agents for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment at the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) represented a significant advance but had an important impact on the budget. As the current model of direct patient delivery had deficiencies, the CEDMAC model of assisted therapy was implemented to focus on rational use to minimize expenses and increase access. However, there is no data to compare the two models. Thus, this study aimed to compare the number of bottles effectively dispensed by the CEDMAC model to direct dispensing and assess its financial impact. Methods: Care of RA patients at CEDMAC in 2015, whose immunobiological drugs were provided by the Ministry of Health, were included. Drug and dose received, prescribed dose, the number of bottles, cancellations due to contraindication, and absences were recorded. As a comparison, the number of bottles that would be delivered by direct dispensing was estimated. The difference between the total number of bottles dispensed by the two systems and the financial impact of the purchase price in 2015 was calculated. Results: In 2015, CEDMAC provided 3,784 consultations for RA patients. The total number of bottles of immunobiological agents prescribed was 10,000 bottles, and 1,946 (19.5%) were not used for bottle optimization, contraindications, or absenteeism. Unused bottles reduced expenses by R$ 806,132.62. The expansion of the model to the entire SUS would reduce costs by R$ 121,110,388.27. Conclusion: The CEDMAC assisted therapy model considerably reduces the volume of dispensed bottles and can significantly reduce expenses in the supply of immunobiological agents for RA at SUS.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department visits: experience of a Brazilian reference center.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of COVID-19 on emergency department metrics at a large tertiary reference hospital in Brazil. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of consecutive emergency department visits, from January 1, 2020, to November 21, 2020, was performed and compared to the corresponding time frame in 2018 and 2019. The volume of visits and patients' demographic and clinic characteristics were compared. All medical conditions were included, except confirmed cases of COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 138,138 emergency department visits occurred during the study period, with a statistically significant (p<0.01) reduction by 52% compared to both 2018 and 2019. This decrease was more pronounced for pediatric visits - a drop by 71% in comparison to previous years. Regarding clinical presentation, there was a decrease of severe cases by 34.7% and 37.6%, whereas mild cases decreased by 55.2% and 56.2% when comparing 2020 to 2018 and 2019, respectively. A 30% fall in the total volume of hospital admission from emergency department patients was observed during the study period, but accompanied by a proportional increase in monthly admission rates since April 2020. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a 52% fall in attendance at our emergency department for other conditions, along with a proportional increase in hospital admission rates of COVID-19 patients. Healthcare providers should raise patient awareness not to delay seeking medical treatment of severe conditions that require care at the emergency department.

Percutaneous Cryoablation versus Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy of Renal T1A Tumors: a Single-Center Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous cryoablation (PCA) versus robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) in patients with small renal tumors (T1a stage), considering perioperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study from November 2008 to April 2017 of 122 patients with a T1a renal mass who after being analyzed by a multidisciplinary board underwent to PCA (59 patients) or RPN (63 patients). Hospital costs in US dollars, and clinical and tumor data were compared. Non-complicated intervention was considered as an effective outcome. A hypothetical model of possible complications based on Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) was built, grouping them into mild (CDC I and II) and severe (CDC III and IV). A decision tree model was structured from complications of published data. RESULTS: Patients who underwent PCA were older (62.5 vs. 52.8 years old, p < 0.001), presented with more coronary disease and previous renal cancer (25.4% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.023 and 38% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001, respectively). Patients treated with PCA had a higher preoperative risk (American Society of Anesthesiologists-ASA ≥ 3) than those in the RPN group (25.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Average operative time was significantly lower with PCA than RPN (99.92 ± 29.05 min vs. 129.28 ± 54.85 min, p < 0.001). Average hospitalization time for PCA was 2.2 ± 2.95 days, significantly lower than RPN (mean 3.03 ± 1.49 days, p = 0.04). The average total cost of PCA was significantly lower than RPN (US$12,435 ± 6,176 vs. US$19,399 ± 6,047, p < 0.001). The incremental effectiveness was 5% higher comparing PCA with RPN, resulting a cost-saving result in favor of PCA. CONCLUSION: PCA was the dominant strategy (less costly and more effective) compared to RPN, considering occurrence of perioperative complications.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study / Características clínicas e desfechos de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos em unidade de terapia intensiva durante o primeiro ano de pandemia no Brasil: um estudo de coorte retrospectivo em centro único

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. Results: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Conclusion: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever características clínicas, uso de recursos e desfechos e identificar preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Estudo de coorte retrospectivo, em centro único, realizado em um hospital privado localizado em São Paulo (SP). Pacientes adultos (≥18 anos) admitidos consecutivamente na unidade de terapia intensiva, entre 4 de março de 2020 a 28 de fevereiro de 2021, foram incluídos neste estudo. Os pacientes foram classificados como sobreviventes e não sobreviventes, de acordo com a alta hospitalar. Resultados: Durante o período do estudo, 1.296 pacientes [mediana (intervalo interquartil) de idade: 66 (53-77) anos] com COVID-19 foram admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Destes, 170 (13,6%) pacientes morreram no hospital (não sobreviventes), e 1.078 (86,4%) receberam alta hospitalar (sobreviventes). Comparados aos sobreviventes, os não sobreviventes eram mais idosos [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) anos; p<0,001], apresentavam pontuação mais alta no sistema prognóstico Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53); pontos p<0,001] e tinham mais comorbidades. Durante a internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, 56,6% dos pacientes usaram ventilação não invasiva, 32,9% usaram ventilação mecânica invasiva, 31,3% usaram cateter nasal de alto fluxo, 11,7% foram submetidos à terapia renal substitutiva, e 1,5% usou oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Os preditores independentes de mortalidade intra-hospitalar foram idade, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson, necessidade de ventilação mecânica, uso de cateter nasal de alto fluxo, uso de terapia renal substitutiva e suporte por oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Conclusão: Pacientes com quadros graves da COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva apresentaram considerável mortalidade e morbidade, com alta demanda de terapia de suporte e internação prolongada em unidade de terapia intensiva e hospitalar.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on care of oncological patients: experience of a cancer center in a Latin American pandemic epicenter / Impacto da COVID-19 sobre o atendimento de pacientes oncológicos: experiência de um centro oncológico localizado em um epicentro Latino-Americano da pandemia

ABSTRACT Objective Since the rising of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of transmission to cancer patients. Evidence on increased severity for patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment is posed against deferring oncologic treatment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes in a cancer center in an epicenter of the pandemic. Methods Outpatient and inpatient volumes were extracted from electronic health record database. Two intervals were compared: pre-COVID-19 (March to May 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020) periods. Results The total number of medical appointments declined by 45% in the COVID-19 period, including a 56.2% decrease in new visits. There was a 27.5% reduction in the number of patients undergoing intravenous systemic treatment and a 57.4% decline in initiation of new treatments. Conversely, there was an increase by 309% in new patients undergoing oral chemotherapy regimens and a 5.9% rise in new patients submitted to radiation therapy in the COVID-19 period. There was a 51.2% decline in length of stay and a 60% reduction in the volume of surgical cases during COVID-19. In the stem cell transplant unit, we observed a reduction by 36.5% in length of stay and a 62.5% drop in stem cell transplants. Conclusion A significant decrease in the number of patients undergoing cancer treatment was observed after COVID-19 pandemic. Although this may be partially overcome by alternative therapeutic options, avoiding timely health care due to fear of getting COVID-19 infection might impact on clinical outcomes. Our findings may help support immediate actions to mitigate this hypothesis.

RESUMO Objetivo Desde o surgimento da pandemia da doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), há incerteza quanto ao impacto da transmissão para pacientes com câncer. As evidências sobre o aumento da gravidade para pacientes submetidos a tratamento antineoplásico são contra o adiamento do tratamento oncológico. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar o impacto da pandemia de COVID-19 em volumes de pacientes em um centro oncológico, em um epicentro da pandemia. Métodos Os volumes de pacientes ambulatoriais e de internação foram extraídos do banco de dados de prontuários eletrônicos. Dois intervalos foram comparados: períodos pré-COVID-19 (março a maio de 2019) e pandemia COVID-19 (março a maio de 2020). Resultados O número total de consultas médicas diminuiu 45% no período pandemia COVID-19, inclusive com redução de 56,2% nas novas consultas. Houve redução de 27,5% no número de pacientes em tratamento sistêmico intravenoso e de 57,4% no início de novos tratamentos. Por outro lado, ocorreram aumento de 309% em novos pacientes submetidos a regimes de quimioterapia oral e elevação de 5,9% em novos pacientes submetidos à radioterapia no período pandemia COVID-19. Observaram-se queda de 51,2% nos dias de internação e redução de 60% no volume de casos cirúrgicos durante a COVID-19. Na unidade de transplante de células-tronco, a redução foi de 36,5% nos dias de internação e de 62,5% nos transplantes de células-tronco. Conclusão Foi observado declínio significativo no número de pacientes em tratamento de câncer após a pandemia de COVID-19. Embora isso possa ser parcialmente superado por opções terapêuticas alternativas, evitar cuidados de saúde oportunos devido ao medo de contrair COVID-19 pode impactar nos resultados clínicos. Nossos resultados podem ajudar a apoiar ações imediatas para mitigar essa hipótese.