RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Patients with stroke associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are a specific group, and their disease has a considerable social and economic impact. The primary objective of the CONOCES study, the protocol of which is presented here, is to compare the costs of stroke in NVAF patients to those of patients without NVAF in Spanish stroke units from a societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CONOCES is an epidemiological, observational, naturalistic, prospective, multicentre study of the cost of the illness in a sample of patients who have suffered a stroke and were admitted to a Spanish stroke unit. During a 12-month follow-up period, we record sociodemographic and clinical variables, score on the NIH stroke scale, level of disability, degree of functional dependency according to the modified Rankin scale, and use of healthcare resources (hospitalisation at the time of the first episode, readmissions, outpatient rehabilitation, orthotic and/or prosthetic material, medication for secondary prevention, medical check-ups, nursing care and formal social care services). Estimated monthly income, lost work productivity and health-related quality of life measured with the generic EQ-5D questionnaire are also recorded. We also administer a direct interview to the caregiver to determine loss of productivity, informal care, and caregiver burden. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The CONOCES study will provide more in-depth information about the economic and clinical impact of stroke according to whether or not it is associated with NVAF.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial/complicações , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/economia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , EspanhaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: A number of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for treatment of moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have recently become available, but none have been directly compared in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study was to assess the relative clinical benefit of all currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified RCTs investigating the efficacy, safety and quality of life associated with licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs for the treatment of moderate-to-very severe COPD. RCTs were screened for inclusion in the NMA using prespecified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted for outcomes of interest, including change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (tFEV1) from baseline, St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) percentage of responders, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) percentage of responders, change in SGRQ score from baseline, change in TDI focal score from baseline, moderate-to-severe exacerbations, all-cause discontinuation, and discontinuation due to adverse events. RESULTS: Following screening, a total of 27 trials from 26 publications with 30,361 subjects were eligible for inclusion in the NMA. Nonsignificant results were seen in most analyses comparing efficacy, exacerbations and discontinuation rates of included LAMA/LABA FDCs (i.e. aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 110/50 µg, tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg, umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg). Meta-regression controlling for post-bronchodilator percentage of tFEV1 predicted at baseline as well as meta-regression adjusting for concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids at baseline was performed to assess the magnitude of effect modification and produced similar results as observed in the base case analysis. CONCLUSION: All LAMA/LABA FDCs were found to have similar efficacy and safety. Definitive assessment of the relative efficacy of different treatments can only be performed through direct comparison in head-to-head RCTs. In the absence of such data, this indirect comparison may be of value in clinical and health economic decision-making.