Theory of Concepts

UID/FIL/00183/2013authorsversionpublishe

Personal and Societal Health Quality Lost to Tuberculosis

BACKGROUND: In developed countries, tuberculosis is considered a disease with little loss of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Tuberculosis treatment is predominantly ambulatory and death from tuberculosis is rare. Research has shown that there are chronic pulmonary sequelae in a majority of patients who have completed treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). This and other health effects of tuberculosis have not been considered in QALY calculations. Consequently both the burden of tuberculosis on the individual and the value of tuberculosis prevention to society are underestimated. We estimated QALYs lost to pulmonary TB patients from all known sources, and estimated health loss to prevalent TB disease. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We calculated values for health during illness and treatment, pulmonary impairment after tuberculosis (PIAT), death rates, years-of-life-lost to death, and normal population health. We then compared the lifetime expected QALYs for a cohort of tuberculosis patients with that expected for comparison populations with latent tuberculosis infection and without tuberculosis infection. Persons with culture-confirmed tuberculosis accrued fewer lifetime QALYs than those without tuberculosis. Acute tuberculosis morbidity cost 0.046 QALYs (4% of total) per individual. Chronic morbidity accounted for an average of 0.96 QALYs (78% of total). Mortality accounted for 0.22 QALYs lost (18% of total). The net benefit to society of averting one case of PTB was about 1.4 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Tuberculosis, a preventable disease, results in QALYs lost owing to illness, impairment, and death. The majority of QALYs lost from tuberculosis resulted from impairment after microbiologic cure. Successful TB prevention efforts yield more health quality than previously thought and should be given high priority by health policy makers. (Refer to Abstracto S1 for Spanish language abstract)

Personalizing Cancer Pain Therapy: Insights from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group

Introduction: A previous Delphi survey from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) project involving Italian palliative care specialists revealed some discrepancies between current guidelines and clinical practice with a lack of consensus on items regarding the use of strong opioids in treating cancer pain. Those results represented the basis for a new Delphi study addressing a better approach to pain treatment in patients with cancer. Methods: The study consisted of a two-round multidisciplinary Delphi study. Specialists rated their agreement with a set of 17 statements using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = totally disagree and 4 = totally agree). Consensus on a statement was achieved if the median consensus score (MCS) (expressed as value at which at least 50% of participants agreed) was at least 4 and the interquartile range (IQR) was 3–4. Results: This survey included input from 186 palliative care specialists representing all Italian territory. Consensus was reached on seven statements. More than 70% of participants agreed with the use of low dose of strong opioids in moderate pain treatment and valued transdermal route as an effective option when the oral route is not available. There was strong consensus on the importance of knowing opioid pharmacokinetics for therapy personalization and on identifying immediate-release opioids as key for tailoring therapy to patients’ needs. Limited agreement was reached on items regarding breakthrough pain and the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. Conclusion: These findings may assist clinicians in applying clinical evidence to routine care settings and call for a reappraisal of current pain treatment recommendations with the final aim of optimizing the clinical use of strong opioids in patients with cancer