No abstract

IntroductionInvasive aspergillosis (IA) is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden. The phase III SECURE trial demonstrated non-inferiority in clinical efficacy between isavuconazole and voriconazole. No studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared to voriconazole. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole vs. voriconazole for the first-line treatment of IA from the US hospital perspective.MethodsAn economic model was developed to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole vs. voriconazole in hospitalized patients with IA. The time horizon was the duration of hospitalization. Length of stay for the initial admission, incidence of readmission, clinical response, overall survival rates, and experience of adverse events (AEs) came from the SECURE trial. Unit costs were from the literature. Total costs per patient were estimated, composed of drug costs, costs of AEs, and costs of hospitalizations. Incremental costs per death avoided and per additional clinical responders were reported. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted.ResultsBase case analysis showed that isavuconazole was associated with a $7418 lower total cost per patient than voriconazole. In both incremental costs per death avoided and incremental costs per additional clinical responder, isavuconazole dominated voriconazole. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Isavuconazole was cost saving and dominant vs. voriconazole in most DSA. In PSA, isavuconazole was cost saving in 80.2% of the simulations and cost-effective in 82.0% of the simulations at the $50,000 willingness to pay threshold per additional outcome.ConclusionIsavuconazole is a cost-effective option for the treatment of IA among hospitalized patients.FundingAstellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0443-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background This prospective randomized controlled study was designed to evaluate the effect of S-ketamine with sufentanil given intraoperatively and postoperatively on recovery of gastrointestinal (GI) function and postoperative pain in gynecological patients undergoing open abdomen surgery. Methods One hundred gynecological patients undergoing open abdomen surgery were randomized into an S-ketamine group (group S) or placebo group (0.9% saline; group C). Anesthesia was maintained with S-ketamine, sevoflurane, and remifentanil-propofol target-controlled infusion in group S and with sevoflurane and remifentanil-propofol target-controlled infusion in group C. All patients were connected to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pump at the end of the surgery with sufentanil, ketorolac tromethamine, and tropisetron in group C and additional S-ketamine in group S. The primary outcome was the time of first postoperative flatus, and the secondary outcome was postoperative pain score of patients. Postoperative sufentanil consumption within the first postoperative 24 h and adverse events such as nausea and vomiting were recorded. Results The time of first postoperative flatus in group S was significantly shorter (mean ± SD, 50.3 ± 13.5 h) than that in group C (mean ± SD, 56.5 ± 14.3 h, p = 0.042). The patient’s visual analog scale (VAS) pain score 24 h after surgery at rest was significantly lower in group S than in group C (p = 0.032). There were no differences in sufentanil consumption within the first postoperative 24 h, postoperative complications related to PCIA between the two groups. Conclusions S-ketamine accelerated postoperative GI recovery and reduced 24 h postoperative pain in patients undergoing open gynecological surgery. Trial registration ChiCTR2200055180. Registered on 02/01/2022. It is a secondary analysis of the same trial.

Lung function impairments, especially airflow obstruction, are important features during acute exacerbation in patients with bronchiectasis. Recognition of the risk factors associated with airflow obstruction is important in the management of these exacerbations. The medical records of adult patients admitted to the Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China, from 2004 to 2011 with a diagnosis of bronchiectasis were reviewed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate the risk factors associated with airflow obstruction. Airflow obstruction was found in 55.6% of 156 patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of bronchiectasis, and the risk factors associated with airflow obstruction included young age (14 years old) at diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) ¼ 3.454, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.709-6.982, p ¼ 0.001) as well as the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; OR ¼ 14.677, 95% CI 5.696-37.819, p ¼ 0.001), asthma (OR ¼ 3.063, 95% CI 1.403-6.690, p ¼ 0.005), and wheezing on auscultation (OR ¼ 3.279, 95% CI 1. 495-7.194, p ¼ 0.003). The C-reactive protein (13.9 mg/dl vs. 6.89 mg/ dl, p ¼ 0.005), partial pressure of arterial oxygen (66.7 + 8.57 mmHg vs. 89.56 + 12.80 mmHg, p < 0.001), and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (40.52 + 2.77 mmHg vs. 42.87 + 5.39 mmHg, p ¼ 0.02) profiles were different between patients with or without airflow obstruction. In addition, patients colonized with potential pathogenic microorganisms had a decreased diffusing capacity (56.0% vs. 64.7%, p ¼ 0.04). Abnormal pulmonary function was common in hospitalized patients with bronchiectasis exacerbations. Airflow obstruction was correlated with the patient's age at diagnosis, as well as the presence of combined COPD and asthma, and wheezing on auscultation, which also resulted in more severe systemic inflammation and hypoxemia.