Actualización del coste de las inoculaciones accidentales en el personal sanitario hospitalario

Vaccination adjuvated against hepatitis B in Spanish National Healthcare System (SNS) workers typed as non-responders to conventional vaccines

TRIAL DESIGN

An interventional, phase 4, single group assignment, without masking (open label), preventive clinical trial was carried out in health workers with biological risk in their tasks, who have been filed as non-responders to conventional vaccination against Hepatitis B.

METHODS

67 health workers with biological risk in their tasks, who have been filed as non-responders to conventional vaccination against Hepatitis B, were enrolled in the Clinical Trial. All participants were from 18 years up to 64 years old.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

NHS workers -including university students doing their internships in health centres dependent on the National Health System (inclusion of students is regulated and limited by specific instructions on labour prevention in each autonomous community)- classified as non-responders. The criteria defining them as non-responders to the conventional hepatitis B vaccine is anti HBsAb titers < 10 mUI/ml following the application of six doses of conventional vaccine at 20 μg doses (two complete guidelines). The objective of this study was to provide Health workers-staff with an additional protection tool against hepatitis B infection, and to evaluate the efficacy of the adjuvanted vaccine in healthy non-responders to conventional hepatitis B vaccine. The primary outcome was the measurement of antibody antiHBs before the first Fendrix® dose and a month after the administration of each dose. Other outcome was collection of adverse effects during administration and all those that could be related to the vaccine and that occur within 30 days after each dose. In this study, only one group was assigned. There was no randomization or masking.

RESULTS

The participants were recruited between April 13, 2018 and October 31, 2019. 67 participants were enrolled in the Clinical Trial and included the analyses. The primary immunisation consists of 4 separate 0.5 ml doses of Fendrix®, administered at the following schedule: 1 month, 2 months and 6 months from the date of the first dose. Once the positivity was reached in any of the doses, the participant finished the study and was not given the following doses. 68.66% (46 out 67) had a positive response to first dose of Fendrix®. 57.14% (12 out 21) had a positive response to second dose of Fendrix®. 22.22% (2 out 9) had a positive response to third dose of Fendrix and 42.96% (3 out 7) had a positive response to last dose of Fendrix®. Overall, 94.02% (64 out 67) of participants had a positive response to Fendrix®. No serious adverse event occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Fendrix®, is a viable vaccine alternative for NHS workers classified as "non-responders". Revaccination of healthy non-responders with Fendrix®, resulted in very high proportions of responders without adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Spanish National Trial Register (REEC), ClinicalTrials.gov and inclusion has been stopped (identifier NCT03410953; EudraCT-number 2016-004991-23).

FUNDING

GRS 1360/A/16: Call for aid for the financing of research projects in biomedicine, health management and socio-health care to be developed in the centres of the Regional Health Management of Autonomous Community of Castile-Leon. In addition, this work has been supported by the Spanish Platform for Clinical Research and Clinical Trials, SCReN (Spanish Clinical Research Network), funded by the Subdirectorate General for Research Evaluation and Promotion of the Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), through the project PT13/0002/0039 and project PT17/0017/0023 integrated in the State Plan for R&D&I 2013-2016 and co-financed by and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

How Much do Needlestick Injuries Cost? A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries Among Healthcare Personnel

OBJECTIVE To provide an overview of the economic aspects of needlestick and sharps injury (NSI) management among healthcare personnel (HCP) within a Health Technology Assessment project to evaluate the impact of safety-engineered devices on health care METHODS A systematic review of economic analyses related to NSIs was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement and by searching PubMed and Scopus databases (January 1997-February 2015). Mean costs were stratified by study approach (modeling or data driven) and type of cost (direct or indirect). Costs were evaluated using the CDC operative definition and converted to 2015 International US dollars (Int$). RESULTS A total of 14 studies were retrieved: 8 data-driven studies and 6 modeling studies. Among them, 11 studies provided direct and indirect costs and 3 studies provided only direct costs. The median of the means for aggregate (direct + indirect) costs was Int$747 (range, Int$199-Int$1,691). The medians of the means for disaggregated costs were Int$425 (range, Int$48-Int$1,516) for direct costs (9 studies) and Int$322 (range, Int$152-Int$413) for indirect costs (6 studies). When compared with data-driven studies, modeling studies had higher disaggregated and aggregated costs, but data-driven studies showed greater variability. Indirect costs were consistent between studies, mostly referring to lost productivity, while direct costs varied widely within and between studies according to source infectivity, HCP susceptibility, and post-exposure diagnostic and prophylactic protocols. Costs of treating infections were not included, and intangible costs could equal those associated with NSI medical evaluations. CONCLUSIONS NSIs generate significant direct, indirect, potential, and intangible costs, possibly increasing over time. Economic efforts directed at preventing occupational exposures and infections, including provision of safety-engineered devices, may be offset by the savings from a lower incidence of NSIs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:635-646.

HIV and risk behaviour among men who have sex with men in Slovakia (2008-2009)

The HIV infection remains a major public health issue in the world and especially in those countries where there exists unprotected sexual intercourse between people of the same sex. It is namely the category of men having sex with men (MSM) that still represents a group at high risk of being infected with HIV or transmitting the virus. The aim of our study was to present HIV 2nd generation surveillance data on MSM in Slovakia in the period between the years 2008 and 2009. Time-location sampling (TLS) was used to recruit participants and oral fluid samples together with completed anonymous questionnaires were collected simultaneously. The oral fluids were tested with use of the Genscreen HIV ½ version 2, (Bio-Rad) and Western Blot (Genlabs) diagnostic kits. The data analysis was performed using Stata version 8. Saliva testing revealed HIV prevalence of 6.1% (21/349) among MSM in Slovakia. 75% of HIV-positive cases were undiagnosed. The high-risk behaviour of MSM in respect to the number of their sexual partners as well as drug and condom usage did not correspond with their relatively high knowledge about HIV/AIDS. People's attitude towards MSM was found to be the worst in the religious context. Though our results reflect a relative good knowledge of MSM about HIV/AIDS infection, new HIV-positive cases and high-risk behaviour still appear, suggesting the need for more effective HIV prevention among members of this high-risk group in Slovakia.

Costs of postexposure management of occupational sharps injuries in health care workers in the Republic of Korea

BACKGROUND

Costs of postexposure treatment of sharps injuries (SIs) in health care workers (HCWs) are an economic burden in many countries. This study analyzed the costs associated with SIs in HCWs in the Republic of Korea.

METHODS

Between October 1, 2005, and February 28, 2006, general information on SIs among HCWs and the direct costs (eg, laboratory, pharmacy, medical and surgical treatments) and indirect costs eg, (loss of working days) were collected prospectively from 34 hospitals nationwide.

RESULTS

A total of 700 SIs were documented, 505 of which (72.1%) generated costs. The average costs per SI were pharmacy, 123,091 won (US$129); laboratory tests, 66,958 won ($70); medical services, 26,332 won ($28); and medical treatments, 9,377 won ($10). The average costs of preventive measures were 160,274 won ($168) for hepatitis B virus (HBV), 127,858 won ($134) for hepatitis C virus (HCV), and 139,552 won ($146) for HIV. Of the laboratory tests, 32.9% were HBV-related, 29.4% were HCV-related, and 19.8% were HIV-related. Of postexposure prophylaxes, 34.9% were HB immunoglobulin and 31.4% were HBV vaccines. We estimated that 7,057.5 SIs generated costs, at a total annual cost of 844,587,577 won ($884,385).

CONCLUSIONS

The direct costs of managing SIs among HCWs constitute an economic burden in Korea. More aggressive and comprehensive preventive measures of SIs should be adopted.

Análisis coste-efectividad de dispositivos sanitarios diseñados para prevenir exposiciones percutáneas

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficiency of the replacement of several medical devices by engineered sharp injury (SI) prevention devices (ESIPDs).

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness ratios of the replacement of medical devices in use by ESIPDs were estimated: their purchasing costs and the direct costs of sharp injury care were taken into account; the number of SI avoidable by each ESIPD was estimated from the 252 occupational SI notified by healthcare workers at a 1,300 bed hospital from March 2002 to February 2003. The relationship between ESIPD additional costs and the number of high-risk SI was estimated (SI were classified as high-risk if they met two or more of the following criteria: moderately-deep or deep injury, injury with a device previously inserted in an artery or vein, or with a device exposed to blood).

RESULTS

ESIPDs order according to cost-effectiveness ratio: safety needle for implanted ports (-2.65 euro/SI avoided), followed by syringes with protective shield (869.79 euro/SI), resheathable winged steel needles, needleless administration sets, and short catheters with protective encasement. ESIPDs order according to relationship between additional costs and number of high-risk sharp injuries avoided: safety needles for implanted ports, followed by winged steel needles, hypodermic syringes, short catheter and needleless administration sets.

CONCLUSIONS

Savings in SI care outweigh additional costs of certain ESIPDs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is useful in assigning priorities; however the risks of SI by every device must be taken into account.