RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether influenza immunization is associated with early side effects, a deleterious impact on the illness course and depressed antibody response in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. CFS patients and healthy volunteers filled out a questionnaire on immunization side effects and had hemagglutination-inhibiting (HI) antibody titres measured pre- and three weeks after immunization. CFS patients completed symptom and function questionnaires before and during the six-week, postimmunization period. SETTING: Ambulatory care. POPULATION STUDIED: Convenience sample of 40 CFS patients fulfilling the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria and 21 demographically matched healthy volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: CFS patients were randomly selected to receive commercially available whole virus influenza vaccine (n=19) or an injection of saline placebo (n=21). Healthy volunteers received vaccine only. MAIN RESULTS: As a group, immunized CFS patients had lower geometric mean HI antibody rises than healthy volunteers (P<0.001). However, there was no difference in the rates of fourfold titre rises, and immunization did achieve a probably protective titre (1:32 or greater) in most CFS patients. No difference could be detected between immunized and placebo CFS patients in immunization side effects, although CFS patients as a group reported four times as many side effects as healthy volunteers. Further, in the six weeks following immunization, placebo and immunized CFS patients did not demonstrate any differences in terms of functioning, symptom severity and sleep disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CFS, influenza immunization is safe, not associated with any excess early reactions, and stimulates an immunizing response comparable with that of healthy volunteers.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 1998 we reported the first Canadian double-blind, randomized, clinical trial involving a comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) with imipenem/cilastatin (I/C). The present study was conducted to determine the feasibility of replacing I/C at our institution. OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcome of a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the clinical trial from the perspective of a tertiary acute-care institution. METHODS: A total of 150 consenting adults originally prescribed I/C were randomly assigned to receive either P/T 4.5 g i.v. (n = 75) or I/C 500 mg i.v. (n = 75) every six hours. Actual direct medical resources used in relation to the treatment of bacterial infections were prospectively assessed during a clinical trial; these included cost of study and ancillary antibiotics, hospitalization, diagnostic testing (radiology, laboratory assessments), and labor, as well as treatment of adverse drug reactions, antibiotic failures, and superinfections. RESULTS: While costs for successful treatment courses were similar across treatment arms, hospitalization costs for treatment course failures were higher for P/T recipients. Direct medical costs for treatment courses associated with a superinfection were also higher in the P/T arm. Overall costs for treatment failures with either study drug were at least twofold those observed for successful treatment courses. Mean total management cost per patient in the P/T group was $15,211 ($ CDN throughout) (95% CI $11,429 to $18,993), compared with $14,232 (95% CI $11,421 to $17,043) in the I/C group (p = 0.32), resulting in a mean cost difference of $979. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the superiority of I/C over P/T for successful treatment of serious infections was sensitive to changes in the cost of hospitalization and drug efficacy for either drug. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the clinical trial, P/T and I/C offer similar clinical, microbiologic, and toxicity outcomes in hospitalized patients with serious infections. Under base-case conditions, our pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that I/C was a cost-effective alternative to P/T at the dosage regimens studied. However, this finding was sensitive to plausible changes in both clinical and economic parameters.
