Objectives The aim was to determine the direct impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Spain’s health budget. Methods Budget impact analyses based on retrospective data from patients with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) admitted to a Spanish hospital between February 26 and May 21, 2020. Direct medical costs from the perspective of the hospital were calculated. We analyzed diagnostic tests, drugs, medical and nursing care, and isolation ward and ICU stays for three cohorts: patients seen in the emergency room only, hospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and patients who tested negative. Results The impact on the hospital’s budget for the 3 months was calculated at €15,633,180, 97.4% of which was related to health care and hospitalization. ICU stays accounted for 5.3% of the total costs. The mean cost per patient was €10,744. The main costs were staffing costs (10,131 to 11,357 €/patient for physicians and 10,274 to 11,215 €/patient for nurses). Scenario analysis showed that the range of hospital expenditure was between €14,693,256 and €16,524,924. The median impact of the pandemic on the Spanish health budget in the sensitivity analysis using bootstrapped individual data was €9357 million (interquartile range [IQR], 9071 to 9689) for the conservative scenario (113,588 hospital admissions and 11,664 ICU admissions) and €10,385 million (IQR, 110,030 to 10,758) for the worst-case scenario (including suspected cases). Conclusion The impact of COVID-19 on the Spanish public health budget (12.3% of total public health expenditure) is greater than multiple sclerosis, cancer and diabetes cost.

Patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome have a high risk of late IOL dislocation after phacoemulsification cataract surgery, and this risk may be related to the use of large incisions and hooks or retractors.

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Resumen: Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la relación entre los riesgos psicosociales y el burnout en un hospital español de media-larga estancia. Se realizó un estudio transversal en 2017, aplicando la versión española del MBI-HSS y el cuestionario F-Psico 3.1 del Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo. Variables predictoras: características sociodemográficas, moduladoras y factores de riesgo psicosocial. Variables resultado: prevalencia de burnout y afectación de sus subescalas. La asociación entre variables se cuantificó con odds ratio. El cansancio emocional se asoció positivamente a los riesgos psicosociales vinculados a carga de trabajo, demandas psicológicas, participación/supervisión, desempeño de rol, relaciones/apoyo social y al consumo de ansiolíticos; fueron factores protectores los hijos, sentirse valorado por pacientes y compañeros, satisfacción laboral, optimismo y apoyo social. Las asociaciones halladas para la despersonalización fueron similares, pero más débiles. La baja realización personal se asoció positivamente a los riesgos psicosociales vinculados al tiempo trabajado, autonomía, variedad/contenido del trabajo, desempeño de rol y apoyo social; fue la subescala que mostró mayor número de variables sociodemográficas/moduladoras protectoras: estado civil, tener hijos, trabajar de noche, sentirse valorado por pacientes y familiares, ilusión por el trabajo, apoyo social, autoeficacia y optimismo. Según nuestros resultados, existe asociación entre los riesgos psicosociales y el burnout. Los individuos con mayor satisfacción laboral, autoeficacia y optimismo, afrontan mejor el estrés y son menos vulnerables a los riesgos psicosociales y al burnout

No abstract

There were no significant differences in effect size between collagenase and fasciectomy. The use of collagenase was associated with a higher overall risk of adverse effects than both fasciectomy and PNF. Cite this article: 2018;100-B:73-80.

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effect of tofacitinib and baricitinib on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Clini-calTrials.gov, LILACS, and Google Scholar databases to identify controlled observational and clinical trials reporting on adverse effects in patients treated with oral tofacitinib or baricitinib up to July 2020. The outcome measure was occurrence of VTE events. We analyzed 59 studies involving 14,335 patients treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib and 11,612 patients who received another active drug or placebo. The meta-analysis showed an odds ratio (OR) for VTE events of 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10-0.84) overall for tofacitinib based on data from 10 clinical trials with 15 treatment arms; similar ORs were observed for the 10 mg/d dose (OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.02-1.60) and the 20 mg/d dose (OR = 0.19; 95% CI = 0.04-0.91). The ORs for VTE events for baricitinib were 3.39 (95% CI = 0.82-14.04) overall, 3.05 (95% CI = 0.12-75.43) for 2 mg, 3.64 (95% CI = 0.59-22.46) for 4 mg, and 3.0 (95% CI = 0.12-76.49) for 7 mg. The indirect meta-analysis comparing tofacitinib with baricitinib (10 clinical trials with 15 treatment arms) showed an OR for VTE events of 0.086 (95% CI = 0.02-0.51) for tofacitinib and a superior safety profile for VTE events. In the meta-regression analysis (19 clinical trials with 21 treatment arms), the effect was 0.02 (95% CI = À0.04 to 0.08) for tofacitinib and À0.01 (95% CI = À1.29 to 1.26 for baricitinib. Plotting of the data for tofacitinib showed that VTE risk increased with high doses. The effect, however, was less than 1 for the 10-mg and 20mg doses, indicating a protective effect. This effect was not observed for baricitinib. Tofacitinib is not associated with an increased risk of VTE and has a superior safety profile to baricitinib in this respect. Tofacitinib may exert a protective effect against VTE.

IV, cohort prospective study.