Study of hyperglycemia in non critically-ill patients receiving parenteral nutrition: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

The objectives of our study on non-critically ill patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) are to assess the incidence of hyperglycemia, the risk factors associated to its development and its influence in patient's evolution.

METHODS

A multicentric prospective observational study was performed in 9 hospitals. Four multivariate studies were developed to study the temporal risk in the occurrence of hyperglycemia (endpoint), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay (LOS) and death. Demographics, nutrients, drugs and clinical variables were collected. Independent variables studied as a possible risk factors were: sex, diabetes mellitus 2, baseline glycemia, albuminemia, pancreatitis, surgery in the 7 days prior to the end point, infection, insulin/somatostatin/corticoids administration during the study, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and difference in the amount of glucose administration between the endpoint and one day before.

RESULTS

119 patients were enrolled in the study, 25 cases of hyperglycemia were detected. In the clinical factors associated with PN hyperglycemia, significant variables were: surgery in the 7 days before the end point, GFR, glucose load in the 24 hours previous to the end point insulin administration and somatostatine/octreotide administration during the study. Hyperglycemia was significantly associated with ICU admission and increased LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Glucose administration in non-critically ill patients receiving PN should be reassessed downwards, especially in the immediate postsurgery, renal impairment and in patients treated with somatostatin analogues. It should be taken into account that an increase in glucose dose may lead to hyperglycemia in these patients and hyperglycemia correlates with longer hospital stay and increased frequency of ICU admissions.

Treatment of anthracycline extravasations using dexrazoxane

Extravasation of cytotoxic agents is a true medical emergency. Dexrazoxane is the only licensed drug for the treatment of anthracycline extravasations. Dexrazoxane proved to be effective and moderately well tolerated. However, alternative approaches for the management of anthracycline extravasations are available such as topical DMSO and cooling. There appears to be general agreement about dexrazoxane usefulness when extravasations involve large volumes of anthracycline and/or central venous access device. Nevertheless, the non-invasive combination of DMSO and cooling is the most commonly described therapy, particularly in small anthracycline extravasations. Further research is still needed to establish unequivocal situations where dexrazoxane must be initiated.

[Update in the management of extravasations of cytocytostatic agent]

OBJECTIVE

To present current developments in the specific management of extravasations of antineoplastic agents after the extravasation.

METHOD

We conducted a search in PubMed, Medline and IDIS-Iowa to identify papers written in English or Spanish that described new specific measures for the management of extravasations. We also reviewed the references given in these papers and recent tertiary sources related to oncology or cytostatic agents. The search covered the period between 1997 and 2010.

RESULTS

There are only specific measures for the treatment of extravasations of 22 cytostatic agents. These measures are presented for each cytostatic agent, according their drug group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although currently there is no general consensus on the specific management of antineoplastic agents after extravasation, this review outlines the information collected and published so far, so that it may be of use to any national health centre where cytostatic drugs are prescribed, handled or administered.

Economic evaluation of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positive microorganisms in Spain

The aim of this study was to perform a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid vs teicoplanin (i.v., switching to oral/i.m. respectively) in Spain. A decision tree model was used with the results of a randomized, comparative, controlled clinical trial with linezolid vs teicoplanin in the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, with a timeline of 31 days. The efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with clinical healing or improvement in their infection. Direct medical costs were included using Spanish 2005 prices. Average cost per patient, average cost-effectiveness ratio and several sensitivity analyses were carried out. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis linezolid obtained a higher percentage of therapeutic success than teicoplanin (95.5% vs 87.6% respectively, p = 0.005), both with similar tolerability. The average cost per treated patient was euro 8,064.76 for linezolid vs euro 8,727.36 for teicoplanin, with an incremental cost of euro 622.59 (-7,6%). Linezolid yielded a lower average cost-effectiveness ratio, euro 8,444.78 (8,195.90 - 8,709.25) than teicoplanin, euro 9,962.74 (9,465.68 - 10,502.23), with a slight reduction in average cost per successfully treated patient of 15.2% ( euro 1,517.96). The results were robust to the sensitivity analysis. In conclusion, linezolid is a more cost-effective option than teicoplanin in the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, since it offers superior clinical benefits with a lower use of associated resources.

Evaluación económica del uso de voriconazol versus anfotericina B en el tratamiento de la aspergilosis invasiva

OBJECTIVE

Invasive aspergillosis is an infection with high incidence and mortality. Voriconazole is a new antifungal agent that presents a high efficacy against Aspergillus. The aim of this evaluation was to carry out a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of voriconazole versus amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Spain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed by building a decision analytical model. Effectiveness data, probabilities of the different branches of the decision tree and consumption of healthcare resources were obtained from a clinical trial that compared voriconazole versus amphotericin B in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and from a local expert panel in order to incorporate the model in the daily medical practice in our country. Only direct medical costs were included in the model (drug acquisition, length of hospital stay, analytical tests and treatment of therapeutic failures). The perspective chosen for this analysis was hospital assistance and the time horizon selected was 12 weeks, the maximum time that patients were followed up in the referenced clinical trial.

RESULTS

Therapeutic success was reached in 52.8% of patients treated with voriconazole and in 31.6% of the group treated with amphotericin B. The cost of treating a patient with voriconazole or amphotericin B was of 56,296 and 56,382 Euros respectively, while the cost/effectiveness ratio was of 106,621 and 178,424 Euros. The incremental analysis performed shows how the use of voriconazole versus amphotericin B produces a healthcare resources saving of 406 Euros per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Voriconazole is more efficient than amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis, (thus) resulting in healthcare resources saving due to better clinical results with lower associated costs.