Impact of Switch Options on the Economics of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) Introduction in Indonesia

As one of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (previously the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), graduating countries, Indonesia is still eligible to access Gavi price for PCV13, PCV10 A and B. This study aims to estimate the economic impact of switch from the existing product/presentation of PCV (single-dose of PCV13) to the new product/presentation of PCV (multi-dose of PCV13, PCV10 A and B) since PCV is one of the most expensive vaccines in the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) schedule. Assuming that Gavi-Advance Market Commitment (AMC) price for all PCVs can be accessed in 2021, the use of multi-dose PCV13, PCV10 A and PCV10 B with Gavi-AMC price in 2021-2024 were considered as respective scenarios. The result showed that the scenario assuming the use of single-dose of PCV13 with contract price in 2019-2020 that would be switched into multi-dose of PCV10 B with Gavi-AMC price in 2021-2024 resulted in the highest potential saving, compared with other scenarios. Our analysis suggests an economic advantage to switch from single-dose into a multi-dose presentation. Vaccination coverage, vaccine price, vaccine wastage and additional Gavi-AMC vaccine costs were considered to be the most influential parameter affecting the savings in all scenarios. Applying the effectiveness of PCV13 and PCV10 A on reducing the risk for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), potential averted incidence of IPD in children under one year of age during 2019-2024 would be 246,164 and 105,587 in both scenarios. Despite the result confirmed that PCV13 may provide an additional benefit, a more comprehensive economic evaluation study is required to investigate further the comparison of cost-effectiveness values among all PCVs in Indonesia

The impact of metabolic syndrome on the clinical profile and tumor characteristics of endometrial carcinoma

Background: The objective is to study the influence of different components of metabolic syndrome on clinical behavior and tumor characteristics of endometrial cancer cases and to evaluate if metformin usage affects the stage and grade of endometrial cancer.Methods: 60 women attending the gynecological oncology clinic at El Shatby Maternity University Hospital, after being diagnosed as endometrial carcinoma, were recruited in the study. Serum samples were collected to detect insulin level and lipid profile, and then allocated into two groups according to metabolic syndrome existence. After the recommended surgery, and the routine histopathological diagnosis followed by histopathological chemilumeniscence technique to detect staining intensity, percentage of estrogen receptors ER, and score out of 8 according to Allred score.Results: Endometrial cancer EC patients with metabolic syndrome had a significantly higher age, higher FIGO stages, and higher grade compared to EC without metabolic syndrome (p˂0.05). There was no statically significant difference between both groups in estrogen receptors scoring. HDL was an important factor affecting grade of EC patients, as when HDL decreased by one mg/dl, the grade increased by 0.033% (P=0.030, OR=0.899, OR adjusted=0.826), Insulin level was found to be an important factor affecting stage as when insulin level increased by one Uiu/ml, the stage increased by1.091% (p=<0.001, OR=1.064, OR adjusted=1.091).Conclusions: Hyperinsulinemia was the most important factor affecting aggressiveness of the tumor as regards stage and risk group classification. Metformin failed to show a protective effect against endometrial cancer progression

Explanation and elaboration of the SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Guidelines, V.2.0: examples of SQUIRE elements in the healthcare improvement literature

Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org

Patient Safety in Orthopedics and Traumatology

Surgical specialties have a higher risk of errors and adverse events as represented in literature Orthopedics is one such specialty in which the clinical risk is more conspicuous and, consequently, it has a high exposure to medical-legal disputes . The aim of this work is to analyze the clinical risk and alleged malpractice in medical practice, in order to map professional risk and identify recurrent pitfalls

The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration

As the science of quality improvement in health care advances, the importance of sharing its accomplishments through the published literature increases. Current reporting of improvement work in health care varies widely in both content and quality. It is against this backdrop that a group of stakeholders from a variety of disciplines has created the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence, which we refer to as the SQUIRE publication guidelines or SQUIRE statement. The SQUIRE statement consists of a checklist of 19 items that authors need to consider when writing articles that describe formal studies of quality improvement. Most of the items in the checklist are common to all scientific reporting, but virtually all of them have been modified to reflect the unique nature of medical improvement work

Factors influencing success in quality-improvement collaboratives: development and psychometric testing of an instrument

Contains fulltext : 88630.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: To increase the effectiveness of quality-improvement collaboratives (QICs), it is important to explore factors that potentially influence their outcomes. For this purpose, we have developed and tested the psychometric properties of an instrument that aims to identify the features that may enhance the quality and impact of collaborative quality-improvement approaches. The instrument can be used as a measurement instrument to retrospectively collect information about perceived determinants of success. In addition, it can be prospectively applied as a checklist to guide initiators, facilitators, and participants of QICs, with information about how to perform or participate in a collaborative with theoretically optimal chances of success. Such information can be used to improve collaboratives. METHODS: We developed an instrument with content validity based on literature and the opinions of QIC experts. We collected data from 144 healthcare professionals in 44 multidisciplinary improvement teams participating in two QICs and used exploratory factor analysis to assess the construct validity. We used Cronbach's alpha to ascertain the internal consistency. RESULTS: The 50-item instrument we developed reflected expert-opinion-based determinants of success in a QIC. We deleted nine items after item reduction. On the basis of the factor analysis results, one item was dropped, which resulted in a 40-item questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis showed that a three-factor model provided the best fit. The components were labeled 'sufficient expert team support', 'effective multidisciplinary teamwork', and 'helpful collaborative processes'. Internal consistency reliability was excellent (alphas between .85 and .89). CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed instrument seems a promising tool for providing healthcare workers and policy makers with useful information about determinants of success in QICs. The psychometric properties of the instrument are satisfactory and warrant application either as an objective measure or as a checklist