No description available.

The Best MPhil Thesis in the Faculties of Dentistry, Engineering, Medicine and Science (University of Hong Kong), Li Ka Shing Prize,2003-2005 / published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Surgery / Master / Master of Philosophy

<p>The newly established Swedish Apheresis Registry makes it possible to do national inter-center comparisons. This study was undertaken to describe and analyze the use of therapeutic apheresis and the adverse effects in such therapy. The special case of plasma exchange as rescue therapy in multi-organ failure, including renal failure, was also studied. In Sweden, plasma for transfusion is prepared and stored to ensure rapid availability. Due to new EU legislation, validation of such plasma was performed. </p><p>The analysis indicated that the use of therapeutic apheresis was in line with recommendations of other international societies. The frequency and types of adverse effects were comparable to those reported in other studies from analogous time periods. Compared with other countries, it appears that more therapeutic resources are available in Sweden and that there is a lower frequency of adverse effects in specific procedures. No fatalities were reported. The unique comparison of differences between centers regarding plasma exchange identified areas for further improvement.</p><p>The study on plasma exchange as rescue therapy in severe sepsis or septic shock is the second largest reported. The result was promising, with a survival rate of 82%. The rapid availability of plasma for transfusion appears to be of clinical importance in patients with early coagulopathy and severe trauma but the present selection and storage procedures for plasma lead to a time-dependent increase of the number of units with cold-induced activation of the contact system and C1 inhibitor consumption before day 14. Improvements of plasma quality can be attained by using plasma from male donors only and by reducing the storage time from 14 to 7 days. </p><p>Further studies are needed to define the role of plasma exchange in severe sepsis/septic shock, to evaluate the outcome of each patient’s treatment and to establish the indications for the transfusion of plasma.</p>

The newly established Swedish Apheresis Registry makes it possible to do national inter-center comparisons. This study was undertaken to describe and analyze the use of therapeutic apheresis and the adverse effects in such therapy. The special case of plasma exchange as rescue therapy in multi-organ failure, including renal failure, was also studied. In Sweden, plasma for transfusion is prepared and stored to ensure rapid availability. Due to new EU legislation, validation of such plasma was performed. The analysis indicated that the use of therapeutic apheresis was in line with recommendations of other international societies. The frequency and types of adverse effects were comparable to those reported in other studies from analogous time periods. Compared with other countries, it appears that more therapeutic resources are available in Sweden and that there is a lower frequency of adverse effects in specific procedures. No fatalities were reported. The unique comparison of differences between centers regarding plasma exchange identified areas for further improvement. The study on plasma exchange as rescue therapy in severe sepsis or septic shock is the second largest reported. The result was promising, with a survival rate of 82%. The rapid availability of plasma for transfusion appears to be of clinical importance in patients with early coagulopathy and severe trauma but the present selection and storage procedures for plasma lead to a time-dependent increase of the number of units with cold-induced activation of the contact system and C1 inhibitor consumption before day 14. Improvements of plasma quality can be attained by using plasma from male donors only and by reducing the storage time from 14 to 7 days. Further studies are needed to define the role of plasma exchange in severe sepsis/septic shock, to evaluate the outcome of each patient’s treatment and to establish the indications for the transfusion of plasma.

Objetivo: Comparar as relações de custo-efetividade de duas terapias, Imunoglubulina Intravenosa (IgIV) e Plasmaferese (PE), no tratamento da Síndrome de Guillain-Barré sob a perspectiva do sistema público (SUS). O objetivo secundário foi avaliar a adesão às recomendações da Comissão de Medicamentos do HCPA Métodos: estudo transversal com análise econômica de pacientes tratados por Síndrome de Guillain-Barré no período de junho de 2003 a junho de 2008 no Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA). Foi realizada análise de custo-efetividade do emprego de IgIV e de PE nestes pacientes, pelo método de minimização de custos, considerando-se somente os custos diretos sanitários, fornecidos pelo sistema gerencial da instituição . Foram excluídos os pacientes que usaram outro tipo de tratamento associado ou isolado. Coletaram-se os dados através da revisão dos prontuários. A gravidade da doença na internação foi classificada como: doença leve, quando caminhar foi possível; doença moderada, quando caminhar foi impossível; doença grave, quando os pacientes necessitaram de ventilação assistida. A incapacidade na alta foi estabelecida pela escala de sete pontos de Hughes. A adesão às recomendações da Comissão de Medicamentos do HCPA, objetivo secundário, foi avaliada através da dose e o esquema de prescrição da IgIV. Resultados: Vinte e cinco participantes (2 a 70 anos) foram incluídos no estudo, cinco tratados com PE, empregando-se Albumina Humana como substituto do plasma, e 20 tratados com IgIV. O custo total do tratamento de um paciente com PE foi R$10.603,88 (± 2.978,12) e o de um que recebeu IgIV foi R$ 32.103,00 (± 21.454,24). O custo total da internação foi de R$45.027,14 (± 32.750,45) para os tratados com PE e de R$ 60.844,28 (±48.590,52) para os que receberam IgIV. Em relação ao desfecho clínico principal, melhora na escala de incapacidade de sete pontos, após o tratamento com uma das alternativas escolhida, a mediana dos pacientes que internaram com grau de gravidade 3 e que foram tratados com PE foi igual a dos que receberam IgIV. Em relação à permanência hospitalar, permanência em UTI e dias de Ventilação Mecânica, não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os dois tratamentos. Conclusões: Quando comparados os custos médios das duas opções terapêuticas, uma delas aparece claramente com menor custo. Quando comparados os desfechos, após o emprego de cada opção terapêutica, estes não revelam diferença. Concluímos que, no HCPA, a opção pelo procedimento Plasmaferese é mais custo efetiva do que o emprego da IgIV. / Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of two distinct therapies, Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIg) and Plasma Exchange (PE) in the treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, concerning the public health care system. Compliance to the guidelines of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre was a secondary objective. Methods: A cross-sectional, economical analysis was conducted, including patients treated for GBS in the period from June, 2003 through June, 2008 in Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA). The cost-effectiveness of the use of IVIg and PE in such patients was studied through the cost minimization method, considering direct medical costs only (2008 currency), yield by the management of the institution. Patients receiving treatments other than PE or IVIg were excluded. Data were collected by chart reviews. Severity of disease on admittance was classified as follows: mild disease, when the patient was able to walk; moderate disease, when the patient was unable to walk, and severe disease, when assisted ventilation was required. Disability on discharge was established by the 7-point scale of Hughes. Compliance to the guidelines of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee was evaluated through the dose and prescription scheme of IVIg. Results: Twenty-five participants (2 to 70 years of age) were included in the study, 5 were submitted to treatment with PE, using human albumin as replacement for plasma, and 20 were treated with IVIg. The total treatment cost for PE in a single patient was US$6,058.85 (±1,701.78 SD), and the same expense for IVIg was US$18,344.57 (± 12,259.56 SD) (p = 0.035). Total inpatient cost was US$25,729.79 (± 18,714.54 SD) in the PE group, and US$34,768.16 (±27,766.01 SD) (p=0.530) in the IVIg group. The main clinical outcome was improvement in the 7-point disability grade scale. The median of that measure in patients admitted with a severity grade 3 treated either with PE and IVIg was the same. Secondary outcomes, such as in-hospital stay, ICU stay, and number of days on mechanical ventilation revealed no statistically significant difference between treatments. Conclusions: As the mean expenses of both therapeutic options are compared, one clearly stands-out as less onerous. Clinical outcomes, when compared, reveal no statistical difference after each treatment. We concluded that, in HCPA, plasma exchange is more cost-effective than intravenous immunoglobulin.

Objetivo: Comparar as relações de custo-efetividade de duas terapias, Imunoglubulina Intravenosa (IgIV) e Plasmaferese (PE), no tratamento da Síndrome de Guillain-Barré sob a perspectiva do sistema público (SUS). O objetivo secundário foi avaliar a adesão às recomendações da Comissão de Medicamentos do HCPA Métodos: estudo transversal com análise econômica de pacientes tratados por Síndrome de Guillain-Barré no período de junho de 2003 a junho de 2008 no Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA). Foi realizada análise de custo-efetividade do emprego de IgIV e de PE nestes pacientes, pelo método de minimização de custos, considerando-se somente os custos diretos sanitários, fornecidos pelo sistema gerencial da instituição . Foram excluídos os pacientes que usaram outro tipo de tratamento associado ou isolado. Coletaram-se os dados através da revisão dos prontuários. A gravidade da doença na internação foi classificada como: doença leve, quando caminhar foi possível; doença moderada, quando caminhar foi impossível; doença grave, quando os pacientes necessitaram de ventilação assistida. A incapacidade na alta foi estabelecida pela escala de sete pontos de Hughes. A adesão às recomendações da Comissão de Medicamentos do HCPA, objetivo secundário, foi avaliada através da dose e o esquema de prescrição da IgIV. Resultados: Vinte e cinco participantes (2 a 70 anos) foram incluídos no estudo, cinco tratados com PE, empregando-se Albumina Humana como substituto do plasma, e 20 tratados com IgIV. O custo total do tratamento de um paciente com PE foi R$10.603,88 (± 2.978,12) e o de um que recebeu IgIV foi R$ 32.103,00 (± 21.454,24). O custo total da internação foi de R$45.027,14 (± 32.750,45) para os tratados com PE e de R$ 60.844,28 (±48.590,52) para os que receberam IgIV. Em relação ao desfecho clínico principal, melhora na escala de incapacidade de sete pontos, após o tratamento com uma das alternativas escolhida, a mediana dos pacientes que internaram com grau de gravidade 3 e que foram tratados com PE foi igual a dos que receberam IgIV. Em relação à permanência hospitalar, permanência em UTI e dias de Ventilação Mecânica, não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os dois tratamentos. Conclusões: Quando comparados os custos médios das duas opções terapêuticas, uma delas aparece claramente com menor custo. Quando comparados os desfechos, após o emprego de cada opção terapêutica, estes não revelam diferença. Concluímos que, no HCPA, a opção pelo procedimento Plasmaferese é mais custo efetiva do que o emprego da IgIV. / Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of two distinct therapies, Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIg) and Plasma Exchange (PE) in the treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, concerning the public health care system. Compliance to the guidelines of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre was a secondary objective. Methods: A cross-sectional, economical analysis was conducted, including patients treated for GBS in the period from June, 2003 through June, 2008 in Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA). The cost-effectiveness of the use of IVIg and PE in such patients was studied through the cost minimization method, considering direct medical costs only (2008 currency), yield by the management of the institution. Patients receiving treatments other than PE or IVIg were excluded. Data were collected by chart reviews. Severity of disease on admittance was classified as follows: mild disease, when the patient was able to walk; moderate disease, when the patient was unable to walk, and severe disease, when assisted ventilation was required. Disability on discharge was established by the 7-point scale of Hughes. Compliance to the guidelines of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee was evaluated through the dose and prescription scheme of IVIg. Results: Twenty-five participants (2 to 70 years of age) were included in the study, 5 were submitted to treatment with PE, using human albumin as replacement for plasma, and 20 were treated with IVIg. The total treatment cost for PE in a single patient was US$6,058.85 (±1,701.78 SD), and the same expense for IVIg was US$18,344.57 (± 12,259.56 SD) (p = 0.035). Total inpatient cost was US$25,729.79 (± 18,714.54 SD) in the PE group, and US$34,768.16 (±27,766.01 SD) (p=0.530) in the IVIg group. The main clinical outcome was improvement in the 7-point disability grade scale. The median of that measure in patients admitted with a severity grade 3 treated either with PE and IVIg was the same. Secondary outcomes, such as in-hospital stay, ICU stay, and number of days on mechanical ventilation revealed no statistically significant difference between treatments. Conclusions: As the mean expenses of both therapeutic options are compared, one clearly stands-out as less onerous. Clinical outcomes, when compared, reveal no statistical difference after each treatment. We concluded that, in HCPA, plasma exchange is more cost-effective than intravenous immunoglobulin.

Objetivo: Comparar as relações de custo-efetividade de duas terapias, Imunoglubulina Intravenosa (IgIV) e Plasmaferese (PE), no tratamento da Síndrome de Guillain-Barré sob a perspectiva do sistema público (SUS). O objetivo secundário foi avaliar a adesão às recomendações da Comissão de Medicamentos do HCPA Métodos: estudo transversal com análise econômica de pacientes tratados por Síndrome de Guillain-Barré no período de junho de 2003 a junho de 2008 no Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA). Foi realizada análise de custo-efetividade do emprego de IgIV e de PE nestes pacientes, pelo método de minimização de custos, considerando-se somente os custos diretos sanitários, fornecidos pelo sistema gerencial da instituição . Foram excluídos os pacientes que usaram outro tipo de tratamento associado ou isolado. Coletaram-se os dados através da revisão dos prontuários. A gravidade da doença na internação foi classificada como: doença leve, quando caminhar foi possível; doença moderada, quando caminhar foi impossível; doença grave, quando os pacientes necessitaram de ventilação assistida. A incapacidade na alta foi estabelecida pela escala de sete pontos de Hughes. A adesão às recomendações da Comissão de Medicamentos do HCPA, objetivo secundário, foi avaliada através da dose e o esquema de prescrição da IgIV. Resultados: Vinte e cinco participantes (2 a 70 anos) foram incluídos no estudo, cinco tratados com PE, empregando-se Albumina Humana como substituto do plasma, e 20 tratados com IgIV. O custo total do tratamento de um paciente com PE foi R$10.603,88 (± 2.978,12) e o de um que recebeu IgIV foi R$ 32.103,00 (± 21.454,24). O custo total da internação foi de R$45.027,14 (± 32.750,45) para os tratados com PE e de R$ 60.844,28 (±48.590,52) para os que receberam IgIV. Em relação ao desfecho clínico principal, melhora na escala de incapacidade de sete pontos, após o tratamento com uma das alternativas escolhida, a mediana dos pacientes que internaram com grau de gravidade 3 e que foram tratados com PE foi igual a dos que receberam IgIV. Em relação à permanência hospitalar, permanência em UTI e dias de Ventilação Mecânica, não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os dois tratamentos. Conclusões: Quando comparados os custos médios das duas opções terapêuticas, uma delas aparece claramente com menor custo. Quando comparados os desfechos, após o emprego de cada opção terapêutica, estes não revelam diferença. Concluímos que, no HCPA, a opção pelo procedimento Plasmaferese é mais custo efetiva do que o emprego da IgIV. / Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of two distinct therapies, Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIg) and Plasma Exchange (PE) in the treatment of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, concerning the public health care system. Compliance to the guidelines of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre was a secondary objective. Methods: A cross-sectional, economical analysis was conducted, including patients treated for GBS in the period from June, 2003 through June, 2008 in Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA). The cost-effectiveness of the use of IVIg and PE in such patients was studied through the cost minimization method, considering direct medical costs only (2008 currency), yield by the management of the institution. Patients receiving treatments other than PE or IVIg were excluded. Data were collected by chart reviews. Severity of disease on admittance was classified as follows: mild disease, when the patient was able to walk; moderate disease, when the patient was unable to walk, and severe disease, when assisted ventilation was required. Disability on discharge was established by the 7-point scale of Hughes. Compliance to the guidelines of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee was evaluated through the dose and prescription scheme of IVIg. Results: Twenty-five participants (2 to 70 years of age) were included in the study, 5 were submitted to treatment with PE, using human albumin as replacement for plasma, and 20 were treated with IVIg. The total treatment cost for PE in a single patient was US$6,058.85 (±1,701.78 SD), and the same expense for IVIg was US$18,344.57 (± 12,259.56 SD) (p = 0.035). Total inpatient cost was US$25,729.79 (± 18,714.54 SD) in the PE group, and US$34,768.16 (±27,766.01 SD) (p=0.530) in the IVIg group. The main clinical outcome was improvement in the 7-point disability grade scale. The median of that measure in patients admitted with a severity grade 3 treated either with PE and IVIg was the same. Secondary outcomes, such as in-hospital stay, ICU stay, and number of days on mechanical ventilation revealed no statistically significant difference between treatments. Conclusions: As the mean expenses of both therapeutic options are compared, one clearly stands-out as less onerous. Clinical outcomes, when compared, reveal no statistical difference after each treatment. We concluded that, in HCPA, plasma exchange is more cost-effective than intravenous immunoglobulin.

No description available.

No description available.