Conectar
Diabetic foot ulcer is a debilitating complication of long-standing diabetes mellitus. Patients lose their earning potential, face repeated hospitalizations, and are forced to bear heavy treatment costs. This places an enormous financial burden on the patients and their families. This study seeks to ascertain the out-of-pocket expenditure among these patients and correlate it with their risk factor profile. In this hospital-based cross-sectional study, a total of 154 patients with diabetic foot ulcers or amputations have been studied with an elaborate patient questionnaire and relevant clinical examinations. The costs incurred and the risk factors of the patients were analyzed for statistical association. The median total annual out-of-pocket expenditure for the management of diabetic foot ulcers among the study participants was found to be ₹29 775 (₹9650–₹81 120) ($378.14 [$122.56–$1030.22]). Out of the total expenditure, 58.49% went towards direct medical costs, 5.64% towards direct non-medical costs, and 35.88% for indirect costs. Medications, ulcer dressing and periodic debridement have accounted for 79.26% of direct medical costs. Transportation (61.37%) and patient's loss of income (89.45%) account for the major costs under the direct non-medical and indirect cost categories, respectively. A high ulcer grade and area, long ulcer duration, and past history of ulcers have higher expenditure. Patients seeking treatment from private establishments and those engaged in professional/skilled occupations have higher expenses. Adequate dressing of foot ulcers and proper footwear are associated with lower treatment expenditure. 68.8% of the participants have faced catastrophic expenditure due to treatment costs of diabetic foot ulcers. Adequate glycaemic control and proper foot care are necessary. Patients must seek medical care at the earliest in case of foot ulceration. Clinicians must provide proper wound care, institute effective antibiotics, and manage the complications. Government and insurance schemes are required to alleviate the patients' financial burden.
The Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE.
REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial.
All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to – Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide.
FreshRSS 