Rejection of hemolyzed samples can jeopardize patient safety.

INTRODUCTION: In vitro hemolysis is the primary cause of sample/test rejection by the laboratory. CASE REPORT: A 10-year-old, admitted with an asthma attack in the emergency-room, medicated with albuterol sulphate (intravenous bronchodilator that could induce hypokalemia), needed laboratory test monitoring. The physician prescribed the technical-nurse to perform blood sampling for: complete blood count, electrolytes, glucose, and blood gas analysis-within 30min after therapy. Samples were delivered to laboratory with a note "I had difficult to locate an appropriate access to perform the blood collection". LABORATORY RESULTS: Glucose: 4.77 mmol/L. Complete blood count revealed discreet eosinophilia 0.13x109/L, and thrombocytopenia 18x109/L. However, platelet clumps were observed in peripheral blood smear. Blood gas analysis was unreported, laboratory informed that sample had micro clots.Electrolytes: laboratory did not report the results; sample hemolyzed. 0.9 g/L of free hemoglobin is the cut-off defined by the laboratory; the sample presented 2.3 g/L of free hemoglobin. 3.9 mmol/L of potassium was the unreported result vs 2.1 mmol/L in the new sample.Briefly, the laboratory technician was trained to hide potassium results on hemolyzed sample due to the potential overestimation. Even if the hemolyzed sample presented a potassium value close to the lower reference range value (3.5-5.1 mmol/L), reporting the potassium result could allow the physician starting proper therapy to revert the hypokalemia by albuterol sulfate. CONCLUSION: The laboratory should be aware of the clinical patient conditions and of the related physician needs, before hiding results. Therefore, both the laboratory and the clinic personnel should communicate in order to guarantee the patient safety.

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons-beta (IFNs-beta) and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 20 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs' prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have both increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality of life. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through the analysis of head-to-head trials.This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis' (first published in the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 7). OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (08 August 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were included and five trials contributed to this review with data. A total of 2904 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1704) and GA (1200). The treatment duration was three years for one study, two years for the other four RCTs while one study was stopped early (after one year). The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (three trials, 466 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Three trials are still ongoing, one of them completed.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or new contrast-enhancing T1 lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.39, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of people with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. people with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality-of-life measures.

Comparative efficacy of interferon ß versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Interferon ß (INFß) and glatiramer acetate (GA) are widely used in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). However, it is still unclear whether they have different efficacy. We performed a systematic search of head-to-head trials for gaining objective reliable data to compare the two drugs, using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We identified five randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) (2858 participants) comparing directly INFß versus GA in RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias. Both therapies showed similar efficacy at 24 months, considering clinical (patients with relapse or progression) and one MRI activity (enhancing lesions) measure. At 3 years, evidence from a single study showed that the relapse rate was higher in the INFß group than in the GA group (risk ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, p 0.002). However, the average reduction in T2-weighted and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the INFß group than in the GA group (mean difference (MD) -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, p 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, p 0.003, respectively). The number of participants who dropped out of the studies because of adverse events was similar in the two groups. These data support clinicians in the use of these therapies, based on their similar safety and efficacy in the prevention of disease activity, although the different effect on MRI measures and the different tolerability might have a role in the therapeutic choice at the individual level.

Interferons-beta versus glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons (IFNs)-beta and glatiramer acetate (GA) were the first two disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) approved 15 years ago for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). DMTs prescription rates as first or switching therapies and their costs have increased substantially over the past decade. As more DMTs become available, the choice of a specific DMT should reflect the risk/benefit profile, as well as the impact on quality profile. As MS cohorts enrolled in different studies can vary significantly, head-to-head trials are considered the best approach for gaining objective reliable data when two different drugs are compared. The purpose of this study is to summarise available evidence on the comparative effectiveness of IFNs-beta and GA on disease course through a systematic review of head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IFNs-beta and GA differ in terms of safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group (29 October 2013) and the reference lists of retrieved articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing directly IFNs-beta versus GA in study participants affected by RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials contributed to this review. A total of 2858 participants were randomly assigned to IFNs (1679) and GA (1179). The treatment duration was three years for one study and two years for the other four RCTs. The IFNs analysed in comparison with GA were IFN-beta 1b 250 mcg (two trials, 933 participants), IFN-beta 1a 44 mcg (two trials, 441 participants) and IFN-beta 1a 30 mcg (two trials, 305 participants). Enrolled participants were affected by active RRMS. All studies were at high risk for attrition bias.Both therapies showed similar clinical efficacy at 24 months, given the primary outcome variables (number of participants with relapse (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.24) or progression (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)). However at 36 months, evidence from a single study suggests that relapse rates were higher in the group given IFNs than in the GA group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.7, P value 0.002).Secondary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes analysis showed that effects on new or enlarging T2- or gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions at 24 months were similar (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26, and MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02, respectively). However, the reduction in T2- and T1-weighted lesion volume was significantly greater in the groups given IFNs than in the GA groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.18, P value 0.004, and MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07, P value 0.003, respectively).The number of participants who dropped out of the study because of adverse events was similar in the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.40).The quality of evidence for primary outcomes was judged as moderate for clinical end points, but for safety and some MRI outcomes (number of active T2 lesions), quality was judged as low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of IFNs-beta and GA in the treatment of patients with RRMS, including clinical (e.g. patients with relapse, risk to progression) and MRI (Gd-enhancing lesions) activity measures, seem to be similar or to show only small differences. When MRI lesion load accrual is considered, the effect of the two treatments differs, in that IFNs-beta were found to limit the increase in lesion burden as compared with GA. Evidence was insufficient for a comparison of the effects of the two treatments on patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life measures.

Adverse reactions in blood and apheresis donors: experience from two Italian transfusion centres.

BACKGROUND: Blood and apheresis donations are widely considered to be safe with a low incidence of adverse reactions and injuries; however, data reported in the medical literature on the prevalence of adverse events in donors and studies on the predictive risk factors for donor reactions are limited and contradictory. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2006 we recorded every adverse reaction verified during 240,596 consecutive blood and apheresis donations (183,855 homologous whole blood donations, 6,669 autologous whole blood donations, 38,647 plasmapheresis, 2,641 plateletpheresis and 8,784 multicomponent donations) at the Italian Transfusion Centres of Verona and Ragusa,. RESULTS: Using a special, pre-arranged form within the quality system, a total of 686 adverse reactions (related to 0.28% of all donations) were recorded. Vasovagal reactions, mostly of mild intensity, were the most commonly observed adverse reactions, with a frequency of 0.20% (487/ 240,596). The frequency of the vasovagal reactions varied according to the different types of donation, being 0.19% (346/183,855) for homologous whole blood donations, 0.24% (16/6,669) for autologous whole blood donations, 0.16% (63/38,647) for plasmapheresis, 0.68% (18/2,641) for plateletpheresis and 0.49 (43/8,784) for multicomponent donations. Citrate toxicity was reported in 0.38% (189/50,072) of apheresis donations. Severe adverse reactions were very rare, as they occurred in 0.004% of the donations (10/240,596). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the results of our 5-year survey document that apheresis and blood donation are safe procedures for the donor with a low incidence of adverse reactions; the adverse reactions that did occur were mostly mild and resolved rapidly.

Which community care for patients with schizophrenic disorders? Packages of care provided by Departments of Mental Health in Lombardy (Italy).

AIMS: The treatment of schizophrenic disorders is the most important challenge for community care. The analysis focuses on packages of care provided to 23.602 patients with a ICD-10 diagnosis of schizophrenic disorder and treated in 2001 by the Departments of Mental Health in Lombardy, Italy. METHODS: Packages of care refer to a mix of treatments provided to each patient during the year by different settings. Direct costs of the packages were calculated. Linear Discriminant Analysis has been used to link socio-demographic and diagnostic sub-groups of the patients to packages of care. RESULTS: People with schizophrenic disorders received relatively few care packages: only four packages involved more than 5%. Two thirds of the patients received only care provided by Community Mental Health Centres. In the other two packages with a percentage over 5%, the activity was provided by CMHCs, jointly with General Hospitals or Day Care Facilities. Complex care packages were rare (only 6%). As well as the intensity, also the variety of care provided by CMHCs increased with the complexity of care packages. In Lombardy more than half of the resources were spent for schizophrenia. The range of the costs per package was very wide. LDA failed to link characteristics of the patients to packages of care. CONCLUSIONS: Care packages are useful tools to understand better how mental health system works, how resources have been spent and to point out problems in the quality of care.

[Packages of care in the departments of mental health in Lombardy]. / I pacchetti di cura nei Dipartimenti di Salute Mentale della Regione Lombardia.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis aims to study the packages of care in the public Departments of Mental Health by diagnosis and service utilisation intensity. DESIGN: Data on community, hospital and residential contacts were provided by the Regional Psychiatric Information System. The sample has been composed by 55,518 patients residents in Lombardy and treated in public Departments of Mental Health. SETTING: The public Departments of Mental Health in Lombardy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fifteen packages of care were defined according to researchers' experience; the package "community care only" has been divided in five sub-packages; for every package the care weight has been attached. RESULTS: Four packages of care ("community care only", "hospital care plus community care", "hospital care only" "community care plus day centre care") represented 95% of the patients. Three quarter of the patients were treated only in the community setting, without hospital, residential and day centre contacts in the year. Heavier patients (patients with more than 5000 care weight) represent only 4%. Residential care is the heavier setting (36% of the total weight), while schizophrenia is the diagnosis with mayor impact on the community services (59% of the total weight). Of the patients treated only in the community setting one third receives only psychological and psychiatric visits, while two thirds integrated community care. Conclusions in community care the mixed packages represent the exception not the rule. More complex or heavier packages are addressed to severe mental illness patients.