Le immobilizzazioni materiali

Objectives To undertake an economic analysis assessing the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone compared with placebo for the relief of sore throat. Design A UK-based, multicentre, two arm, individually randomised, double blind trial. Setting and population Adults (≥18 years) with acute sore throat and painful swallowing judged to be infective in origin, recruited and randomised in primary care. Intervention: A single dose of 10 mg oral dexamethasone compared with placebo given at primary care visit. Main outcome Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost per quality-adjusted symptom resolution using the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels instrument, were estimated as part of a cost-utility analysis performed on an intention-to-treat cohort adopting a health payers perspective. Results Differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 7 days from baseline and at 24 hours in the dexamethasone compared with the placebo group (2.9% and 2.5% higher, respectively) were observed. After controlling for the baseline HRQoL imbalances, the economic impact of the intervention was not statistically significant: The quality-adjusted life year difference was-0.00005 (95% CI-0.0002 to 0.00011) equivalent to a loss in HRQoL of a half hour in the dexamethasone group. The average cost per patient associated in the dexamethasone and placebo groups in the basecase analysis was £73 and £69, respectively. In the basecase probabilistic analysis, the mean ICER was-£6440 (95% CI-£132 151 to £126 335) and the median ICER was-£304 (IQR-£5816 to £3877); suggesting considerable uncertainty. Conclusions and relevance The economic burden associated with sore throat is substantial and was estimated at £2.35 billion to the healthcare services payer based on reported resource use and 2015 UK unit costs. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone as a treatment strategy and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use in clinical practice.</p

Supporting prostate cancer survivors in primary care: Findings from a pilot trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (PROSPECTIV).

PURPOSE: This study sought to test the acceptability and feasibility of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (NLPI) delivered in primary care to prostate cancer survivors, and to provide preliminary estimates of the effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: Men who reported an ongoing problem with urinary, bowel, sexual or hormone-related functioning/vitality on a self-completion questionnaire were invited to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to the NLPI plus usual care, or to usual care alone. Recruitment and retention rates were assessed. Prostate-related quality of life, self-efficacy, unmet needs, and psychological morbidity were measured at baseline and 9 months. Health-care resource use data was also collected. An integrated qualitative study assessed experiences of the intervention. RESULTS: 61% eligible men (83/136) participated in the trial, with an 87% (72/83) completion rate. Interviews indicated that the intervention filled an important gap in care following treatment completion, helping men to self-manage, and improving their sense of well-being. However, only a small reduction in unmet needs and small improvement in self-efficacy was observed, and no difference in prostate-related quality of life or psychological morbidity. Patients receiving the NLPI recorded more primary care visits, while the usual care group recorded more secondary care visits. Most men (70%; (21/30)) felt the optimal time for the intervention was around the time of diagnosis/before the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention in primary care is feasible, acceptable and potentially useful to prostate cancer survivors