The use of the o-arm® or radioscope in spine surgery: systematic review with meta-analysis / O uso do o-arm® ou da radioscopia em cirurgias da coluna: revisão sistemática com meta-análise / El uso de o-arm® o radioscopia en cirugías espinales: una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis

ABSTRACT The great advances in using new devices and imaging systems in surgeries aim to reproduce an ideal and safe scenario for the surgeon, the team, and the patient. New systems and devices are constantly available to demonstrate and facilitate intraoperative navigation, thereby reducing errors and avoiding complications for the patient and staff. This study evaluates and compares using the O-arm® system and radioscopy in the freehand technique in spine surgeries. For this, searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase for randomized and non-randomized studies using the O-arm® system and radioscopy in spine surgery. Twenty-four studies were included and compared regarding procedure time, accuracy of implant positioning, effective radiation dose, safety, and efficacy. In one study, the O-arm® group showed a shorter surgical time when compared to the freehand technique (222.5 min. [SD=38.0] vs. 255.2 min. [SD=40.3], p=0.011, respectively). In two studies, the freehand technique resulted in a lower effective radiation dose for patients. In 12 studies, a higher incidence of complications was observed among patients undergoing surgery with the freehand technique. It was concluded that using the O-arm® is associated with a reduction in malposition of implants and more safety for instrumented procedures. Still, no evidence exists that its use can result in less surgical time. Level of Evidence I; Diagnostic Analysis and Studies, Investigation of a Diagnostic Test.

Resumo: O grande avanço do uso de novos dispositivos e sistemas de imagem nas cirurgias tem por objetivo reproduzir um cenário ideal e seguro para o cirurgião, a equipe e o paciente. Constantemente, novos sistemas e aparelhos estão disponíveis para demonstrar e facilitar a navegação intraoperatória, com isso procurando reduzir erros e evitar complicações para o paciente e para equipe. Este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar e comparar o uso do sistema O-arm® e a utilização de radioescopia na técnica de freehand em cirurgias de coluna. Para isso, foram realizadas buscas nas bases PubMed e Embase de estudos randomizados e não randomizados sobre o uso em cirurgias de coluna do sistema O-arm® e radioscopia. Foram incluídos 24 estudos que foram comparados quanto ao tempo de procedimento, acurácia do posicionamento dos implantes, dose efetiva de radiação, segurança e eficácia. Um estudo o grupo O-arm® apresentou menor tempo cirúrgico quando comparado à técnica freehand (222,5 min. [DP=38,0] vs. 255,2 min. [DP=40,3], p=0,011, respectivamente). Em dois estudos, a técnica freehand resultou em menor dose efetiva de radiação para pacientes. Em 12 estudos observou-se maior incidência de complicações entre pacientes submetidos à cirurgia com técnica freehand. Concluiu-se que o uso do O-arm® está associado a uma redução da ocorrência do mal posicionamento dos implantes e mais segurança para os procedimentos instrumentados, porém sem evidências que seu uso possa resultar em menor tempo cirúrgico. Nível de Evidência I; Análises e Estudos Diagnósticos, Investigação de um Exame para Diagnóstico.

Resumen: El gran avance en el uso de nuevos dispositivos y sistemas de imagen en las cirugías pretende reproducir un escenario ideal y seguro para el cirujano, equipo y paciente. Constantemente se encuentran disponibles nuevos sistemas y dispositivos para demostrar y facilitar la navegación intraoperatoria, buscando así reducir errores y evitar complicaciones al paciente y al personal. Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar y comparar el uso del sistema O-arm® y el uso de radioscopia en la técnica de manos libres en cirugías de columna. Para ello se realizaron búsquedas en PubMed y Embase de estudios aleatorizados y no aleatorizados sobre el uso del sistema O-arm® y radioscopia. en cirugía de coluna. Se incluyeron y compararon 24 estudios con respecto al tiempo del procedimiento, precisión del posicionamiento del implante, dosis de radiación efectiva, seguridad y eficacia. En un estudio, el grupo O-arm® mostró tiempo quirúrgico más corto en comparación con técnica de mano alzada(222,5min [DE=38,0]vs. 255,2min[DE=40,3], p=0,011, respectivamente). En dos estudios, la técnica de mano alzada dio como resultado dosis de radiación efectiva más baja para los pacientes. En 12 estudios se observó mayor incidencia de complicaciones entre pacientes sometidos a cirugía con la técnica de mano alzada. Se concluyó que el uso del O-arm® está asociado con reducción en la ocurrencia de mala posición de los implantes y más seguridad para procedimientos instrumentados, pero sin evidencia de que su uso pueda resultar en menor tiempo quirúrgico. Descriptores:

Clinical Equivalence between Generic Versus Branded Antibiotics: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Regulatory authorities authorize the clinical use of generic drugs (GD) based on bioequivalence studies, which consist of the evaluation of pharmacokinetics after a single dose in vitro or in healthy individuals. There are few data on clinical equivalence between generic and branded antibiotics. Our aim was to synthesize and analyze the available evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of generic antibiotics compared to their original formulations. A systematic review was performed on Medline (PubMed) and Embase and validated through Epistemonikos and Google Scholar. The last search was conducted on 30 June 2022. Meta-analyses of clinical cure and mortality outcomes were performed. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) and 10 non-randomized intervention studies were included. No differences in clinical cure were observed between groups in the meta-analysis (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.61-1.28]; I2 = 70%, p = 0.005). No difference was observed between groups when considering the use of carbapenems for overall mortality (OR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.63-1.55]; I2 = 78%) or death associated with infections (OR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.48-1.29], I2 = 67%). Most of the studies were observational, and the duration of follow-up, the characteristics of the participants, and the sites of infections were heterogeneous. Due to the uncertainty of the evidence, it is not possible to contraindicate the use of generics, which is an important strategy to expand access.

Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. / Hidroxicloroquina para Pacientes com COVID-19 não Hospitalizados: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTS: Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate. CONCLUSION: Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

FUNDAMENTO: Revisões sistemáticas anteriores não identificaram benefício do uso da hidroxicloroquina ou da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados. Após a publicação dessas revisões, os resultados do COPE, o maior ensaio clínico randomizado até hoje, tornaram-se disponíveis. OBJETIVOS: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) para sintetizar as evidências sobre a eficácia e a segurança da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados em comparação a controle ou tratamento padrão. MÉTODOS: As buscas foram conduzidas nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library e ClinicalTrials.gov, e complementadas por busca manual. Foram realizadas metanálises diretas e avaliações de risco de viés e certeza da evidência, incluindo análise do tamanho ótimo da informação (OIS, optimal information size). Um nível de significância de 0,05 foi adotado na metanálise. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. RESULTADOS: Oito ECRs com 3219 participantes foram incluídos. As taxas de internação por COVID-19 e de eventos adversos não foram significativamente diferentes entre hidroxicloroquina (5,6% e 5,1%) e controle (7,4% e 20,4%) [risco relativo (RR) 0,77, intervalo de confiança 95% (IC95%), 0,57-1,04, I2: 0%; RR 1,78, IC95% 0,90; 3,52, I2: 93%, respectivamente)]. O OIS (7880) não foi alcançado para hospitalização por COVID-19, independentemente da simulação para a taxa de evento e redução do RR estimados. CONCLUSÃO: A evidência de muito baixa qualidade indicou falta de benefício com hidroxicloroquina em prevenir internações por COVID-19. Apesar de ser a revisão sistemática com o maior número de participantes incluídos, o OIS, considerando a resposta à infecção anterior à vacinação, não foi atingido.

Hidroxicloroquina para Pacientes com COVID-19 não Hospitalizados: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados / Hydroxychloroquine for Non-Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Resumo Fundamento: Revisões sistemáticas anteriores não identificaram benefício do uso da hidroxicloroquina ou da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados. Após a publicação dessas revisões, os resultados do COPE, o maior ensaio clínico randomizado até hoje, tornaram-se disponíveis. Objetivos: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) para sintetizar as evidências sobre a eficácia e a segurança da hidroxicloroquina e da cloroquina em pacientes com COVID-19 não hospitalizados em comparação a controle ou tratamento padrão. Métodos: As buscas foram conduzidas nos bancos de dados PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library e ClinicalTrials.gov, e complementadas por busca manual. Foram realizadas metanálises diretas e avaliações de risco de viés e certeza da evidência, incluindo análise do tamanho ótimo da informação (OIS, optimal information size). Um nível de significância de 0,05 foi adotado na metanálise. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. Resultados: Oito ECRs com 3219 participantes foram incluídos. As taxas de internação por COVID-19 e de eventos adversos não foram significativamente diferentes entre hidroxicloroquina (5,6% e 5,1%) e controle (7,4% e 20,4%) [risco relativo (RR) 0,77, intervalo de confiança 95% (IC95%), 0,57-1,04, I2: 0%; RR 1,78, IC95% 0,90; 3,52, I2: 93%, respectivamente)]. O OIS (7880) não foi alcançado para hospitalização por COVID-19, independentemente da simulação para a taxa de evento e redução do RR estimados. Conclusão: A evidência de muito baixa qualidade indicou falta de benefício com hidroxicloroquina em prevenir internações por COVID-19. Apesar de ser a revisão sistemática com o maior número de participantes incluídos, o OIS, considerando a resposta à infecção anterior à vacinação, não foi atingido.

Abstract Background: Previous systematic reviews have identified no benefit of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After publication of these reviews, the results of COPE, the largest randomized trial conducted to date, became available. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to placebo or standard of care. Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov complemented by manual search. Pairwise meta-analyses, risk of bias, and evidence certainty assessments were conducted, including optimal information size analysis (OIS). A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted in the meta-analysis. PROSPERO: CRD42021265427. Results: Eight RCTs with 3,219 participants were included. COVID-19 hospitalization and any adverse events rates were not significantly different between hydroxychloroquine (5.6% and 35.1%) and control (7.4% and 20.4%) (risk ratio, RR, 0.77, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.57-1.04, I2: 0%; RR 1.78, 95%-CI 0.90; 3.52, I2: 93%, respectively). The OIS (7,880) was not reached for COVID-19 hospitalization, independently of the simulation for anticipated event rate and RR reduction estimate. Conclusion: Evidence of very low certainty showed lack of benefit with hydroxychloroquine in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations. Despite being the systematic review with the largest number of participants included, the OIS, considering pre-vaccination response to infection, has not yet been reached.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology. / Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia.

INTRODUCTION: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. RESULTS: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Diretrizes para o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19. Consenso da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, da Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia e da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia / Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19. The task-force/consensus guideline of the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine, the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology

RESUMO Introdução: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas, consideradas ou propostas para o tratamento da COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é fornecer recomendações baseadas nas evidências científicas disponíveis e em sua interpretação transparente, para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico da COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: Um grupo de 27 especialistas e metodologistas integraram a força-tarefa formada pela Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB), pela Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia (SBI) e pela Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia (SBPT). Foram realizadas revisões sistemáticas rápidas, atualizadas até 28 de abril de 2020. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o sistema GRADE. As recomendações foram elaboradas nos dias 5, 8 e 13 de maio de 2020. Resultados: Foram geradas 11 recomendações, embasadas em evidência de nível baixo ou muito baixo. Não há indicação para uso de rotina de hidroxicloroquina, cloroquina, azitromicina, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroides ou tocilizumabe no tratamento da COVID-19. Heparina deve ser utilizada em doses profiláticas no paciente hospitalizado, mas não deve ser realizada anticoagulação na ausência de indicação clínica específica. Antibacterianos e oseltamivir devem ser considerados somente nos pacientes em suspeita de coinfecção bacteriana ou por influenza, respectivamente. Conclusão: Até o momento, não há intervenções farmacológicas com efetividade e segurança comprovada que justifiquem seu uso de rotina no tratamento da COVID-19, devendo os pacientes serem tratados preferencialmente no contexto de pesquisa clínica. As recomendações serão revisadas continuamente, de forma a capturar a geração de novas evidências.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Different therapies are currently used, considered, or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19; for many of those therapies, no appropriate assessment of effectiveness and safety was performed. This document aims to provide scientifically available evidence-based information in a transparent interpretation, to subsidize decisions related to the pharmacological therapy of COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: A group of 27 experts and methodologists integrated a task-force formed by professionals from the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB), the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Sociedad Brasileira de Infectologia - SBI) and the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Tisiology (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia - SBPT). Rapid systematic reviews, updated on April 28, 2020, were conducted. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the development of recommendations followed the GRADE system. The recommendations were written on May 5, 8, and 13, 2020. Results: Eleven recommendations were issued based on low or very-low level evidence. We do not recommend the routine use of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir/ritonavir, corticosteroids, or tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19. Prophylactic heparin should be used in hospitalized patients, however, no anticoagulation should be provided for patients without a specific clinical indication. Antibiotics and oseltamivir should only be considered for patients with suspected bacterial or influenza coinfection, respectively. Conclusion: So far no pharmacological intervention was proven effective and safe to warrant its use in the routine treatment of COVID-19 patients; therefore such patients should ideally be treated in the context of clinical trials. The recommendations herein provided will be revised continuously aiming to capture newly generated evidence.

Validation of a Battery of Neuropsychological Tests for Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

This study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of Trail Making Test (TMT), Continuous Reaction Time (CRT), Finger Tapping Test (FTT), Digit Span Test (DST), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in Brazilian patients with metastatic cancer. Cognitive performance of 178 patients with metastatic cancer and 79 controls was assessed using the TMT, CRT, FTT, DST, and MMSE. Discriminant validity, concurrent validity, and reliability (39 patients were retested after 3-7 days) were investigated. Discriminant validity between groups was observed in TMT, DST, and MMSE. Measures of concurrent validity and cognitive performance were positively correlated with physical performance, education level, and better performance on MMSE. Negative correlations were observed between cognitive function, pain, anxiety, and depression. All tests but FTT demonstrated very good reliability. Thus, all neuropsychological tests but FTT showed psychometric properties that permit their use in clinical and research purposes in patients with metastatic cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial treatment for inpatients with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection: a systematic review of economic evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy for patients with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infection. INTRODUCTION: Among the main multi-resistant microorganisms, carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae is responsible for the mortality of 40% of patients following 30 days of infection. Treatment for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection entails the use of high-cost antimicrobials. Inappropriate use of antimicrobials can increase the cost of treatment fourfold. This review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy treatment for patients with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection to better inform decision making in hospital services. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review included studies on participants 18 years or over with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection who had undergone antimicrobial therapy in hospital and acute care services. Studies that compared the cost-effectiveness of different antimicrobial therapy for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection were included. Outcome measures were cost per unit of effect expressed in clinical outcome units; this included cost per avoided death, cost per prevention of sepsis and cost per duration of stay. Economic studies with a cost-effectiveness design were considered, as well as modeling studies. METHODS: A three-step search strategy was utilized to locate studies published in English, Spanish or Portuguese, with no date restrictions. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and the full texts of potentially relevant studies for eligibility. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. Data were extracted from included studies using the standardized JBI data extraction tool. Data were synthesized using narrative, tables and the JBI Dominance Ranking Matrix. RESULTS: This review identified eight studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection. The results of this study demonstrated that there was no gold standard treatment for carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infection, hence treatment was generally directed by colonization pressure and resistance profiles. Furthermore, due to the moderate quality and limited number of studies, there was high uncertainty of the values of the cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Ofloxacin appears to be the most cost-effective treatment; however, conclusions are limited due to the small number and low quality of studies.

Variations in Costs of a Collaborative Care Model for Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Care coordination programs can improve patient outcomes and decrease healthcare expenditures; however, implementation costs are poorly understood. We evaluate the direct costs of implementing a collaborative dementia care program. DESIGN: We applied a micro-costing analysis to calculate operational costs per-participant-month between March 2015 and May 2017. SETTING: The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). PARTICIPANTS: Participants diagnosed with dementia, enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid, 45 years of age or older, residents of California, Nebraska or Iowa, and having a caregiver. The sample was 272 (UCSF) and 192 (UNMC) participants. INTERVENTION: A collaborative dementia care program provided by care team navigators (CTNs), advanced practice nurses, a social worker, and a pharmacist, focusing on caregiver support and education, medications, advance care planning, and behavior symptom management. MEASUREMENTS: We measured costs (personnel, supplies, equipment, and training costs) during three program periods, Start-up, Early Operations, and Continuing Operations, and estimated the effects of caseload variation on costs. RESULTS: Start-up and Early Operations costs were, respectively, $581 and $328 (California), and $501 and $219 (Nebraska) per-participant-month. Average costs decreased across phases to $241 (California) and $142 (Nebraska) per-participant-month during Continuing Operations. We estimated that costs would range between $75 (UNMC) and $92 (UCSF) per-participant-month with the highest projected caseloads (90). CONCLUSION: We found that CTN caseload is an important driver of service cost. We provide strategies for maximizing caseload without sacrificing quality of care. We also discuss current barriers to broad implementation that can inform new reimbursement policies. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2628-2633, 2019.

Denosumab versus bisphosphonates for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are highly prevalent in breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers. Their symptoms negatively affect quality of life and functionality and optimal management can mitigate these problems. There are two different targeted agents to treat them: bisphosphonates (pamidronate and zoledronic acid) and the monoclonal antibody denosumab. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are still mixed. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of economic studies that compares these two options. METHOD: Literature search comprised eight databases and keywords for bone metastases, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and economic studies were used. Data were extracted regarding their methodologic characteristics and cost-effectiveness analyses. All studies were evaluated regarding to its methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 263 unique studies were retrieved and six met inclusion criteria. All studies were based on clinical trials and other existing literature data, and they had high methodological quality. Most found unfavorable cost-effectiveness for denosumab compared with zoledronic acid, with adjusted ICERS that ranged from $4638-87,354 per SRE avoided and from US$57,274-4.81 M. per QALY gained, which varied widely according to type of tumor, time horizon, among others. Results were sensitive to drug costs, time to first skeletal-related event (SRE), time horizon, and utility. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab had unfavorable cost-effectiveness compared with zoledronic acid in most of the included studies. New economic studies based on real-world data and longer time horizons comparing these therapeutic options are needed.

Análise econômica do denosumabe e dos bisfosfonatos no tratamento de pacientes com metástase óssea / Economic analysis of denosumab and bisphosphonates for the treatment of patients with bone metastases

Introdução: Metástases ósseas são prevalentes em pacientes com câncer avançado e podem causar prejuízos significativos na qualidade de vida do doente. O tratamento consiste no controle da dor e na prevenção de Eventos Relacionados ao Esqueleto (ERE), complicações altamente limitantes e de impacto multidimensional. Na prevenção de ERE são utilizados bisfosfonatos e denosumabe, medicamentos de uso crônico e de alto custo, os quais requerem avaliações de custo-efetividade, sobretudo para auxiliar decisões que envolvem alocação de recursos públicos. Objetivo: Realizar análise econômica de medicamentos alvo-específicos usados no tratamento de pacientes com metástases ósseas. Método: Trata-se de uma Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (ATS) em que se realizou Análise de Custo-Efetividade (ACE) e de impacto orçamentário (AIO), sob a perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde, com horizonte temporal de dois anos. Os dados relativos a custos foram provenientes de bases de dados nacionais. Informações relativas à efetividade, medida pela proporção de pacientes livres de ERE derivou-se de revisões sistemáticas. Na ACE, desenvolveram-se dois modelos de Markov, a saber: pacientes com câncer de mama, cujo tratamento foi baseado no uso de denosumabe, ácido zoledrônico ou pamidronato; e para Outros Tumores Sólidos (OTS), baseado no uso de denosumabe ou ácido zoledrônico. Nestes modelos, considerou-se quatro estados de saúde (com/sem ERE, novo ERE e morte). Resultados foram expressos em Razão de Custo- Efetividade Incremental (RCEI) e as incertezas foram testadas em análise de sensibilidade determinística e probabilística. Realizou-se AIO em cinco anos, considerando-se diferentes cenários de uso das terapias. Resultados: Na modelagem de Markov para mama, evidenciou-se que o pamidronato foi o tratamento mais custo-efetivo. As RCEI do ácido zoledrônico e do denosumabe em relação ao pamidronato foram, respectivamente, de R$ 5.935,60 e R$ 17.929,09 por ERE evitado. No modelo para OTS, a estratégia custo-efetiva foi o ácido zoledrônico. A RCEI do denosumabe em relação ao ácido zoledrônico foi de R$ 26.061,90 por ERE evitada. Em análise de sensibilidade, os resultados inicialmente encontrados foram mantidos, o que indica a robustez das análises. Na AIO, independentemente do tipo de tumor, o uso do ácido zoledrônico representou o cenário menos oneroso, em cinco anos. Conclusões: Para o Brasil, as ACE apontaram que o medicamento custo- efetivo para o tratamento de metástases ósseas no câncer de mama foi o pamidronato e para OTS foi o ácido zoledrônico. A incorporação do denosumabe resultaria em aumento substancial nos custos do tratamento, especialmente em longo prazo. Entretanto, para a tomada de decisão, devem-se considerar fatores para além de efetividade, segurança e custos, como aceitabilidade, valores e preferências dos pacientes, viabilidade e equidade.

Introduction: Bone metastases are prevalent among patients with advanced cancer and may result in significant decrease in quality of life. Its treatment consists of pain alleviation and prevention of Skeletal Related Events (SRE), highly debilitating complications with multidimensional impact. Bisphosphonates and denosumab are the treatment of choice to prevent SRE. Both are high cost medications of chronic use, which requires cost effectiveness analyses to support decision making in resource allocation. Objectives: To conduct an economic analysis of bone-targeted agents for the treatment of bone metastases secondary to solid tumors. Methods: A Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) was performed from the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System, over a 2-year time horizon. Data were collected from different sources and included national databases for different categories of costs, and scientific articles for effectiveness, measured by the proportion of SRE-free patients. The CEA was based on two Markov models: For patients with breast cancer, in which the treatment was based on denosumab, zoledronic acid or pamidronate; and for Other Solid Tumors (OST), based on the use of denosumab and zoledronic acid. In these models, four health states (with/without SRE, new SRE, and death), and their transition probabilities were considered. Results were expressed by means of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER), and the uncertainties were tested in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. A BIA in five years was conducted considering different scenarios. Results: In the Markov model for breast cancer, pamidronate was the cost-effective strategy. In the zoledronic acid/pamidronate and denosumab/pamidronate comparisons, ICERs of R$ 5,935.70 and R$ 17,929.09 per SRE avoided were observed. In the OST model, zoledronic acid was the cost-effective strategy, and the ICER of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid was R$ 26,061.44 per SRE avoided. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model, as results remained unchanged. In the BIA, regardless of tumor type, the least costly scenario in five years was the one in which all patients received zoledronic acid. Conclusion: Considering the Brazilian healthcare setting, the CEA showed that pamidronate for breast cancer and zoledronic acid for OST were the cost-effective strategies. Denosumab coverage would result in substantial increase in treatment costs. However, in the decision-making process, factors beyond effectiveness, safety and costs should be considered, for example, acceptability, patients values and preferences, feasibility and equity.

Cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial treatment for inpatients infected with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase: a systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy treatment for inpatients infected with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase.More specifically, the review question is: What is the best evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial treatment for inpatients infected with Klebsiella Pneumoniae Carbapenemase?"

Effects of dignity therapy on terminally ill patients: a systematic review / Efectos de la Terapia Dignidad Para Pacientes en Fase Final de Vida: Revisión Sistemática / Efeitos da terapia da dignidade para pacientes em fase final de vida: revisão sistemática

Abstract OBJECTIVE Analyzing the evidence of the effects of dignity therapy onterminally ill patients. METHOD A Systematic review of the literature conducted using the search strategy in six databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies, excluding literature reviews (systematic or not) and conceptual articles. RESULTS Ten articles were analyzed regarding method, results and evidence level. Dignity therapy improved the sense of meaning andpurpose, will to live, utility, quality of life, dignity and family appreciationin studies with a higher level of evidence. The effects are not well established in relation to depression, anxiety, spirituality and physical symptoms. CONCLUSION Studies with a moderate to high level of evidence have shown increased sense of dignity, will to live and sense of purpose. Further studies should be developed to increase knowledge about dignity therapy.

Resumen OBJETIVO Analizar las evidencias acerca de los efectos de la terapia dignidad para pacientes en fase terminal de vida. MÉTODO Revisión sistemática de la literatura llevada a cabo en seis bases de datos en la estrategia de búsqueda. Los criterios de inclusión fueron estudios primarios, excluyéndose las revisiones de literatura (sistemáticas o no) y los artículos conceptuales. RESULTADOS Diez artículos fueron analizados en cuanto al método, los resultados y el nivel de evidencia. En los estudios con mayor nivel de evidencia, la terapida de la dignidad mejoró el sentido de significado, propósito, ganas de vivir, utilidad, calidad de vida, dignidad y estimación familiar. Los efectos no están bien planteados con respecto a la depresión, ansiedad, espiritualidad y los síntomas físicos. CONCLUSIÓN Los estudios de nivel de evidencia de moderado a alto demostraron incremento del sentido de dignidad, ganas de vivir y sentido de propósito. Se deben desarrollar más estudios a fin de ampliar el conocimiento acerca de la terapia de la dignidad.

Resumo OBJETIVO Analisar as evidências sobre os efeitos da terapia da dignidade para pacientes em fase terminal de vida. MÉTODO Revisão sistemática da literatura realizada em seis bases de dados na estratégia de busca. Os critérios de inclusão foram estudos primários, excluindo-se revisões da literatura (sistemáticas ou não) e artigos conceituais. RESULTADOS Dez artigos foram analisados quanto ao método, aos resultados e nível de evidência. Nos estudos com maior nível de evidência, a terapia da dignidade melhorou o senso de significado, propósito, vontade de viver, utilidade, qualidade de vida, dignidade e apreciação familiar.Os efeitos não estão bem estabelecidos em relação à depressão, ansiedade, espiritualidade e aos sintomas físicos. CONCLUSÃO Os estudos de nível de evidência de moderado a alto demonstraram aumento do senso de dignidade, vontade de viver e senso de propósito. Mais estudos devem ser desenvolvidos para ampliar o conhecimento sobre a terapia da dignidade.

Effects of dignity therapy on terminally ill patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Analyzing the evidence of the effects of dignity therapy onterminally ill patients. METHOD: A Systematic review of the literature conducted using the search strategy in six databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies, excluding literature reviews (systematic or not) and conceptual articles. RESULTS: Ten articles were analyzed regarding method, results and evidence level. Dignity therapy improved the sense of meaning andpurpose, will to live, utility, quality of life, dignity and family appreciationin studies with a higher level of evidence. The effects are not well established in relation to depression, anxiety, spirituality and physical symptoms. CONCLUSION: Studies with a moderate to high level of evidence have shown increased sense of dignity, will to live and sense of purpose. Further studies should be developed to increase knowledge about dignity therapy. OBJETIVO: Analisar as evidências sobre os efeitos da terapia da dignidade para pacientes em fase terminal de vida. MÉTODO: Revisão sistemática da literatura realizada em seis bases de dados na estratégia de busca. Os critérios de inclusão foram estudos primários, excluindo-se revisões da literatura (sistemáticas ou não) e artigos conceituais. RESULTADOS: Dez artigos foram analisados quanto ao método, aos resultados e nível de evidência. Nos estudos com maior nível de evidência, a terapia da dignidade melhorou o senso de significado, propósito, vontade de viver, utilidade, qualidade de vida, dignidade e apreciação familiar.Os efeitos não estão bem estabelecidos em relação à depressão, ansiedade, espiritualidade e aos sintomas físicos. CONCLUSÃO: Os estudos de nível de evidência de moderado a alto demonstraram aumento do senso de dignidade, vontade de viver e senso de propósito. Mais estudos devem ser desenvolvidos para ampliar o conhecimento sobre a terapia da dignidade.