Case management: cost-effectiveness analysis in continuity of patient care of the Complex Chronic Patients Unit

Objetivo: Evaluar la relación entre los costes asociados al número y días de ingresos previos y posteriores a la inclusión a la Unidad de pacientes crónicos complejos (PCC). Métodos: Se realizó un análisis de coste-efectividad, descriptivo, con cálculo de medias y desviaciones típicas; además de utilizar la t-Student para muestras pareadas, con el software SPSS v20.0, para un nivel de significación alfa <0,05. Los resultados del cómputo se obtuvieron de la Unidad de Codificación de los pacientes captados por la enfermera gestora de casos, y que sobrevivieron un año en seguimiento por la Unidad PCC. Resultados: Se captaron un total de 132 PCC, con un total de 563 ingresos previos, a 204 post inclusión. La media de número de ingresos al año antes fue de 4,27 (DT: 3,35), y se redujo a 1,55 (DT: 1,74). Por otro lado, el número de días de estancia hospitalaria total se redujo de 3.835 a 1.897 días, que equivale una diferencia de coste estimado en 11165.164,36 de euros. La media de días de ingreso antes fue de 29,05, y se redujo a 14,37 días, encontrando una significación estadística (p<0,001) entre días de ingresos previos y posteriores. Conclusiones: La inclusión en la Unidad PCC garantiza, mediante el liderazgo por la enfermera gestora de casos, una mejora coste-efectiva sin gastos añadidos, por optimizar recursos ya existentes interniveles asistenciales, mediante la identificación de PCC y sus necesidades prioritarias, planificación al alta con informes individualizados y garantizando el contacto.Objective: Evaluate the relationship between the costs associated with the number and days of admission before and after inclusion in the Complex Chronic Patients Unit (CCP). Methods: A descriptive cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, with calculation of arithmetic averages and standard deviations; in addition to using the t-Student for paired samples, with the SPSS v20.0 software, for a significance level alpha <0.05. The results of the computation were obtained from the Coding Unit of the patients recruited by the case manager nurse, who survived one year of follow-up by the CCP Unit. Results: A total of 132 CCP were recruited, with a total of 563 previous admissions, which were reduced to 204 post inclusion. The average number of admissions of the previous year was 4.27 (SD: 3.35), and it was reduced to 1.55 (SD: 1.74). On the other hand, the number of days of total hospital stay was reduced from 3,835 to 1,897 days, which is equivalent to a difference in estimated cost of 11,165,164.36 euros. The average number of days of admission before was 29.05, and it was reduced to 14.37 days, finding a statistical significance (p<0.001) between days of admission before and after. Conclusions: Inclusion in the CCP Unit guarantees, through the leadership of the case manager nurse, a cost-effective improvement without added expenses, by optimizing already existing interlevel care resources, through the identification of CCP and their priority needs, discharge planning with reports individualized and guaranteeing contact

Long-term outcomes of the global tuberculosis and COVID-19 co-infection cohort

Background: Longitudinal cohort data of patients with tuberculosis (TB) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. In our global study, we describe long-term outcomes of patients affected by TB and COVID-19. Methods: We collected data from 174 centres in 31 countries on all patients affected by COVID-19 and TB between 1 March 2020 and 30 September 2022. Patients were followed-up until cure, death or end of cohort time. All patients had TB and COVID-19; for analysis purposes, deaths were attributed to TB, COVID-19 or both. Survival analysis was performed using Cox proportional risk-regression models, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival and mortality attributed to TB, COVID-19 or both. Results: Overall, 788 patients with COVID-19 and TB (active or sequelae) were recruited from 31 countries, and 10.8% (n=85) died during the observation period. Survival was significantly lower among patients whose death was attributed to TB and COVID-19 versus those dying because of either TB or COVID-19 alone (p&lt;0.001). Significant adjusted risk factors for TB mortality were higher age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), HIV infection (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.02-5.16) and invasive ventilation (HR 4.28, 95% CI 2.34-7.83). For COVID-19 mortality, the adjusted risks were higher age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male sex (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.24-3.91), oxygen requirement (HR 7.93, 95% CI 3.44-18.26) and invasive ventilation (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.36-3.53). Conclusions: In our global cohort, death was the outcome in &gt;10% of patients with TB and COVID-19. A range of demographic and clinical predictors are associated with adverse outcomes

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

Objective:To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background:AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods:This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results:This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions:The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field