FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Cost-effectiveness analysis of probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) versus placebo in Australian children with peanut allergy alongside a randomised trial

Por: Huang · L. · Dalziel · K. · Lloyd · M. · Loke · P. · Lozinsky · A. C. · Tang · M.
Objective

To compared the cost-effectiveness of coadministration of a probiotic adjuvant with peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) with placebo (no treatment) in children with peanut allergy.

Design

Prospectively planned cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised control trial.

Setting

The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

Participants

56 children with peanut allergy aged 1–10 years at recruitment.

Intervention

A daily dose of probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC 1.3724 (NCC4007) and peanut oral immunotherapy administered for 1.5 years.

Main outcomes measures

Costs were considered from a healthcare system perspective and included costs of treatment delivery and adverse events. Effectiveness outcomes included rate of sustained unresponsiveness (SU) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness of PPOIT versus placebo was analysed using patient-level data. Time horizon was 10 years from commencement of PPOIT treatment, comprising 1.5 years of treatment (actual data), 4 years of post-treatment follow-up (actual data), and 4.5 years of extrapolation thereafter (modelling).

Results

Healthcare cost per patient over 10 years was higher for PPOIT compared with placebo ($A9355 vs $A1031, p

Conclusions

Cost per QALY gained using PPOIT compared with no treatment is approximately $A20 000 (£10 000) and is well below the conventional value judgement threshold of $A50 000 (£25 000) per QALY gained, thus deemed good value for money ($A1= £0.5 approximately).

Trial registration number

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000594325; Post-results.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in England prior to vaccination: a retrospective observational cohort study

Por: Rabe · A. P. J. · Loke · W. J. · Kalyani · R. N. · Tummala · R. · Stirnadel-Farrant · H. A. · Were · J. · Winthrop · K. L.
Objectives

Determine the prevaccination healthcare impact of COVID-19 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in England.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of adult patients with SLE from 1 May to 31 October 2020.

Setting

Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) databases from general practitioners across England combining primary care and other health-related data.

Participants

Overall, 6145 adults with confirmed SLE diagnosis ≥1 year prior to 1 May 2020 were included. Most patients were women (91.0%), white (67.1%), and diagnosed with SLE at age

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared. COVID-19 severity was determined by patient care required and procedure/diagnosis codes. COVID-19 cumulative incidence, hospitalisation rates, lengths of stay and mortality rates were determined and stratified by SLE and COVID-19 severity.

Results

Of 6145 patients, 3927 had mild, 1288 moderate and 930 severe SLE at baseline. The majority of patients with moderate to severe SLE were on oral corticosteroids and antimalarial treatments. Overall, 54/6145 (0.88%) patients with SLE acquired and were diagnosed with COVID-19, with 45 classified as mild, 6 moderate and 3 severe COVID-19. Cumulative incidence was higher in patients with severe SLE (1.4%) compared with patients classified as mild (0.8%) or moderate (0.8%). Ten COVID-19-specific hospital admissions occurred (n=6 moderate; n=4 severe). Regardless of COVID-19 status, hospital admission rates and length of stay increased with SLE severity. Of 54 patients with SLE diagnosed with COVID-19, 1 (1.9%) COVID-19-related death was recorded in a patient with both severe SLE and severe COVID-19.

Conclusions

SLE severity did not appear to impact COVID-19 outcomes in this study. The COVID-19 pandemic is evolving and follow-up studies are needed to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and SLE.

The Canadian Study of Arterial Inflammation in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Vascular Events, Evaluation of Colchicine Effectiveness (CADENCE): protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Por: Boczar · K. E. · Shin · S. · deKemp · R. A. · Dowlatshahi · D. · Tavoosi · A. · Wiefels · C. · Liu · P. · Lochnan · H. · MacPherson · P. A. · Chong · A. Y. · Torres · C. · Leung · E. · Tawakol · A. · Ahmadi · A. · Garrard · L. · Lefebvre · C. · Kelly · C. · MacPhee · P. · Tilokee · E. · Ragg
Background

Inflammation is a key mediator in the development and progression of the atherosclerotic disease process as well as its resultant complications, like myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and cardiovascular (CV) death, and is emerging as a novel treatment target. Trials involving anti-inflammatory medications have demonstrated outcome benefit in patients with known CV disease. In this regard, colchicine appears to hold great promise. However, there are potential drawbacks to colchicine use, as some studies have identified an increased risk of infection, and a non-significant trend for increased all-cause mortality. Thus, a more thorough understanding of the underlying mechanism of action of colchicine is needed to enable a better patient selection for this novel CV therapy.

Objective

The primary objective of the Canadian Study of Arterial Inflammation in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Vascular Events, Evaluation of Colchicine Effectiveness (CADENCE) trial is to assess the effect of colchicine on vascular inflammation in the carotid arteries and ascending aorta measured with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or pre-diabetes who have experienced a recent vascular event (acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke). Secondary objectives include determining colchicine’s effect on inflammatory biomarkers (high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6)). Additionally, we will assess if baseline inflammation imaging or biomarkers are associated with a treatment response to colchicine determined by imaging. Exploratory objectives will look at: (1) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in patients with coronary events compared with patients with cerebral events; (2) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in different vascular beds; (3) the relationship of FDG-PET imaging markers with serum biomarkers and (4) assessment of quality-of-life changes.

Methods and design

CADENCE is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to determine the effect of colchicine on arterial inflammation as assessed with imaging and circulatory biomarkers, specifically carotid arteries and aortic FDG uptake as well as hs-CRP and IL-6 among others. Patients with T2DM or pre-diabetes who have recently experienced a CV event (within 30–120 days after an ACS (ie, ST-elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI)) or TIA/stroke with documented large vessel atherosclerotic disease will be randomised to treatment with either colchicine 0.6 mg oral daily or placebo. Participants will undergo baseline clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan of the ascending aorta and left and right carotid arteries. Patients will undergo treatment for 6 months and have repeat clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan at the conclusion of the study. The primary outcome will be the change in the maximum target to background ratio (TBRmax) in the ascending aorta (or carotid arteries) from baseline to follow-up on FDG PET/CT imaging.

Discussion

Colchicine is an exciting potential new therapy for CV risk reduction. However, its use is associated with side effects and greater understanding of its underlying mechanism of action is needed. Importantly, the current study will determine whether its anti-inflammatory action is an indirect systemic effect, or a more local plaque action that decreases inflammation. The results will also help identify patients who will benefit most from such therapy.

Trial registration number

NCT04181996.

❌