El curioso efecto abscopal / The strange abscopal effect

No disponible

Comparison of two vaccination strategies against hepatitis A and B in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: although the vaccination against hepatitis A (VAH) and hepatitis B (VBH) is recommended in patients with HCV, the most cost-effective strategy has not been established. Our objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal strategy (vaccination all patients) with selective strategy (vaccination only patients against virus they lack immunity to) in patients with HCV. PATIENTS AND METHODS: we compared the direct medical costs of the two vaccination strategies against both viruses in 313 patients with HC. Serological markers for HAV (anti-HAV) and HBV (HbsAg, anti HBs, anti HBc) were determined in the 313 patients and the costs of the vaccines and the blood tests necessary to determinate the immunity state in our care system were considered. RESULTS: the prevalence of anti-HAV was 81,2% and of anti-HBc was 24,6%. The prevalence of anti-HAV increases with age. HAV vaccination with universal strategy has a cost of 19.806,64 euro and with selective one of 9.899,62 euro. HBV vaccination with universal strategy rose to 18.780 euro and to 20.385,57 euro with selective one (employing anti-HBc). Costs were analysed in different groups of age and several hepatitis HBV risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: the selective vaccination strategy against HAV was most cost-effective in our patients with HCV. However, when the prevalence of the anti-HAV decreased to less than 20% universal strategy will be the best option. Difference of cost-effective between the two vaccination strategies against HBV was small, on behalf of universal one, so in groups with higher anti-HBc prevalence, like parenteral drugs users and tattoos, the selective strategy could be the best option.

Comparación de dos estrategias de vacunación frente a la hepatitis A y B en individuos con hepatitis crónica C / Comparison of two vaccination strategies against hepatitis A and B in patients with chronic hepatitis C

Objetivo: aunque se recomienda vacunar frente al virus de la hepatitis A (VHA) y al virus de la hepatitis B (VHB) a los pacientes con infección crónica por el virus de la hepatitis C (VHC), la estrategia de vacunación más costo-efectiva aún no está establecida. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar la vacunación universal (de todos los individuos) con la selectiva (únicamente de los individuos no inmunizados) frente al VHA y al VHB de los pacientes con infección crónica por VHC en nuestro medio. Pacientes y métodos: comparamos los costes directos de las dos estrategias de vacunación frente a ambos virus en 313 individuos con infección crónica por VHC. Determinamos los marcadores serológicos del VHA (anti-VHA) y del VHB (HBsAg, anti-HBs y anti-HBc) y tuvimos en cuenta los costes de vacunas y reactivos en nuestro ámbito. Resultados: la prevalencia de anti-VHA fue del 81,2% y la de anti-HBc del 24,6%. La prevalencia de anti-VHA aumentaba progresivamente con la edad. La inmunización frente al VHA suponía 19.806,64 € con la estrategia universal y 9.899,62 € con la selectiva. La vacunación frente al VHB ascendía a 18.780 € con la inmunización universal y a 20.385,57 € con la selectiva (mediante el anti-HBc). Se analizaron los costes considerando distintos grupos etarios y diversos factores de riesgo. Conclusiones: en nuestros individuos con infección crónica por VHC la vacunación selectiva frente al VHA es la más costoefectiva. Pero cuando el porcentaje de inmunización frente al VHA desciende por debajo del 20% la mejor opción es la universal. La diferencia en la costoefectividad de ambas estrategias de vacunación frente al VHB es pequeña, a favor de la universal, por lo que en subgrupos con elevada prevalencia de anti-HBc, como adictos a drogas y tatuados, la selectiva podría ser la mejor alternativa(AU)

Objective: although the vaccination against hepatitis A (VAH) and hepatitis B (VBH) is recommended in patients with HCV, the most cost-effective strategy has not been established. Our objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of universal strategy (vaccination all patients) with selective strategy (vaccination only patients against virus they lack immunity to) in patients with HCV. Patients and methods: we compared the direct medical costs of the two vaccination strategies against both viruses in 313 patients with HC. Serological markers for HAV (anti-HAV) and HBV (HbsAg, anti HBs, anti HBc) were determined in the 313 patients and the costs of the vaccines and the blood tests necessary to determinate the immunity state in our care system were considered. Results: the prevalence of anti-HAV was 81,2% and of anti-HBc was 24,6%. The prevalence of anti-HAV increases with age. HAV vaccination with universal strategy has a cost of 19.806,64 € and with selective one of 9.899,62 €. HBV vaccination with universal strategy rose to 18.780 € and to 20.385,57 € with selective one (employing anti-HBc). Costs were analysed in different groups of age and several hepatitis HBV risk factors. Conclusions: the selective vaccination strategy against HAV was most cost-effective in our patients with HCV. However, when the prevalence of the anti-HAV decreased to less than 20% universal strategy will be the best option. Difference of cost-effective between the two vaccination strategies against HBV was small, on behalf of universal one, so in groups with higher anti-HBc prevalence, like parenteral drugs users and tattoos, the selective strategy could be the best option(AU)

Heart metastases and superior vena cava syndrome.

Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) may be due to a tumour infiltrating the right atrium. We present two patients with SVCS. The first one was secondary to solitary atrial metastases of rectal adenocarcinoma and benefited from palliative chemotherapy. The second patient had a disseminated large cell B-cell lymphoma with rapid clinical complete response, but she eventually died after relapse.

Heart metastases and superior vena cava síndrome

Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) may be due to a tumour infiltrating the right atrium. We present two patients with SVCS. The first one was secondary to solitary atrial metastases of rectal adenocarcinoma and benefited from palliative chemotherapy. The second patient had a disseminated large cell B-cell lymphoma with rapid clinical complete response, but she eventually died after relapse (AU)

Sequential therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with weekly paclitaxel followed by cisplatin-gemcitabine-vinorelbine. A phase II study.

OBJECTIVES: New effective therapies are needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to assess the response rate and survival obtained with a sequential regimen of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed stage IIIb-IV NSCLC were included. They all had measurable disease and a good performance status (0-2 in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale). Chemotherapy consisted of weekly paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 x 6, followed two weeks later by cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 14, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 14 (CGV). CGV was administered every 28 days for a maximum of six courses. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included, 19 (37%) with stage IIIb and 33 (63%) with stage IV disease. After therapy with weekly paclitaxel. 29 partial responses were obtained (56%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 38%-67%), whereas 15 patients had stable disease (29%) and eight had a progression (15%). After CGV, there were four complete remissions (8%) and 24 partial responses (46%), for an overall response rate of 54% (95% CI: 37%-65%). Eight patients had stable disease (15%) and 16 had a progression (31%). No patient progressing after paclitaxel responded to CGV, whereas 5 out of 15 patients with stable disease reached a partial response with CGV (33%). On the contrary, 5 out of 29 patients with a partial response to paclitaxel progressed after CGV (17%). Median survival has not been reached after a median follow-up of 14 months. Median time to progression was nine months. Fifty-six percent of patients remain alive at one year. Two hundred eighty-nine courses of paclitaxel and 170 of CGV were given, with a median of 5.5 and 3.4 per patient, respectively (ranges 2-6 and 0-6. respectively). WHO grade 3-4 toxicities for paclitaxel were: neutropenia in two patients (4/) and peripheral neuropathy in five (10%). Two patients had allergic reactions requiring paclitaxel withdrawal, whereas four (8%) had hyperglycemia >250 mg/ml. Grade 3-4 toxicities for CGV were: neutropenia in ten patients (20%), peripheral neuropathy in six (12%), anemia in four (8%), nausea/vomiting in five (10%). thrombocytopenia in two (4%), and fatigue in four (8%). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that sequential chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel followed by CGV is highly active in patients with advanced NSCLC and has an acceptable toxicity. This schedule deserves further evaluation in a phase III study.