Summaryobjectives To assess whether the clinical and laboratory methods for diagnosing Strongyloides stercoralis infection in non-endemic countries is different between those who are chronically exposed and those who travel.methods Analysis of laboratory and clinical data from 204 patients having S. stercoralis infection at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, London.results Sixty-four travellers and 128 immigrants from endemic countries had laboratory-proven strongyloides. In those with microscopically proven disease, serology was 73% sensitive in travellers and 98% sensitive in immigrants (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the eosinophil count between the two groups with 19% having a normal count. Patterns of symptoms varied between the groups, and around one-third were asymptomatic in both groups. Serology was of limited use in follow-up.conclusions Eosinophil count and stool microscopy are insufficiently sensitive to be used alone for screening strongyloides. The sensitivity of serology is good in immigrants with chronic infection, but lower in travellers.
Background This study aimed to compare the outcomes of two distinct patient populations treated within two neighboring UK cancer centers (A and B) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Methods A retrospective analysis of all new stages 3 and 4 EOC patients treated between January 2013 and December 2014 was performed. The Mayo Clinic surgical complexity score (SCS) was applied. Cox regression analysis identified the impact of treatment methods on survival. Results The study identified 249 patients (127 at center A and 122 in centre B) without significant differences in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (FIGO 4, 29.7% at centers A and B), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (ECOG < 2, 89.9% at centers A and B), or histology (serous type in 84.1% at centers A and B). The patients at center A were more likely to undergo surgery (87% vs 59.8%; p < 0.001). The types of chemotherapy and the patients receiving palliative treatment alone were equivalent between the two centers (3.6%). The median SCS was significantly higher at center A (9 vs 2; p < 0.001) with greater tumor burden (9 vs 6 abdominal fields involved; p < 0.001), longer median operation times (285 vs 155 min; p < 0.001), and longer hospital stays (9 vs 6 days; p < 0.001), but surgical morbidity and mortality were equivalent. The independent predictors of reduced overall survival (OS) were non-serous histology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–2.61), ECOG higher than 2 (HR, 1.9; 95% CI 1.15–3.13), and palliation alone (HR, 3.43; 95% CI 1.51–7.81). Cytoreduction, of any timing, had an independent protective impact on OS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.31 for interval surgery and 0.39 for primary surgery), even after adjustment for other prognostic factors. Conclusions Incorporating surgery into the initial EOC management, even for those patients with a greater tumor burden and more disseminated disease, may require more complex procedures and more resources in terms of theater time and hospital stay, but seems to be associated with a significant prolongation of the patients overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone.
ObjectivesThere is a scarcity of literature reporting hospital costs for treating out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) survivors, especially within the UK. This is essential for assessment of cost-effectiveness of interventions necessary to allow just allocation of resources within the National Health Service. We set out primarily to calculate costs stratified against hospital survival and neurological outcomes. Secondarily, we estimated cost effectiveness based on estimates of survival and utility from previous studies to calculate costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY).SettingWe performed a single centre (London) retrospective review of in-hospital costs of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after OOHCA over 18 months from January 2011 (following widespread introduction of targeted temperature management and primary percutaneous intervention).ParticipantsOf 69 successive patients admitted over an 18-month period, survival and cerebral performance category (CPC) outcomes were obtained from review of databases and clinical notes. The Trust finance department supplied ICU and hospital costs using the Payment by Results UK system.ResultsOf those patients with ROSC admitted to ICU, survival to hospital discharge (any CPC) was 33/69 (48%) with 26/33 survivors in CPC 1–2 at hospital discharge. Cost per survivor to hospital discharge (including total cost of survivors and non-survivors) was £50 000, cost per CPC 1–2 survivor was £65 000. Cost and length of stay of CPC 1–2 patients was considerably lower than CPC 3–4 patients. The majority of the costs (69%) related to intensive care. Estimated cost per CPC 1–2 survivor per QALY was £16 000.ConclusionsThe costs of in-hospital patient care for ICU admissions following ROSC after OOHCA are considerable but within a reasonable threshold when assessed from a QALY perspective.
Summary Renal impairment is common in patients who are critically ill with coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19). We examined the association between acute and chronic kidney disease with clinical outcomes in 372 patients with coronavirus disease‐19 admitted to four regional intensive care units between 10 March 2020 and 31 July 2020. A total of 216 (58%) patients presented with COVID‐19 and renal impairment. Acute kidney injury and/or chronic kidney disease was associated with greater in‐hospital mortality compared with patients with preserved renal function (107/216 patients (50%) (95%CI 44–57) vs. 32/156 (21%) (95%CI 15–28), respectively; p < 0.001, relative risk 2.4 (95%CI 1.7–3.4)). Mortality was greatest in patients with renal transplants (6/7 patients (86%) (95%CI 47–100)). Mortality rates increased in patients with worsening renal injury according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes classification: stage 0 mortality 33/157 patients (21%) (95%CI 15–28) vs. stages 1–3 mortality 91/186 patients (49%) (95%CI 42–56); p < 0.001, relative risk 2.3 (95%CI 1.7–3.3). Survivors were less likely to require renal replacement therapy compared with non‐survivors (57/233 patients (24%) vs. 64/139 patients (46%), respectively; p < 0.001, relative risk 1.9 (95%CI 1.4–2.5)). One‐fifth of survivors who required renal replacement therapy acutely in intensive care continued to require renal support following discharge. Our data demonstrate that renal impairment in patients admitted to intensive care with COVID‐19 is common and is associated with a high mortality and requirement for on‐going renal support after discharge from critical care. Our findings have important implications for future pandemic planning in this patient cohort.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.