Search

Copyright of Notfall & Rettungsmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Establishment of dedicated Stroke Centers has shown to be effective on the outcome of patients with acute ischemic stroke, as well as mechanical thrombectomy (MTE) in acute large vessel occlusion. The cost-effectiveness of this treatment has also been proven in several countries, but so far not in Switzerland. We compare the pathways and economic impact of patients with acute large vessel occlusions causing acute ischemic stroke before the establishment of the stroke center and MTE in 2016 with the time afterwards in the years 2016–2020. Local data from the Swiss Stroke Registry and hospital accounting as well as economic data from a healthcare insurance company was used for evaluation in an economic model. Both payer and societal perspectives were considered, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore uncertainty. Establishment of a new Stroke Center in Central Switzerland increased the absolute number of thrombectomies from 0 in 2015 to 55 in 2016 to 83 in 2020, as well as the percentage of MTE in large vessel occlusions (LVO) from 50.9% in 2016 to 58.2% in 2020. Over a 15-year horizon, predicted average additional costs of CHF 7,978 were associated with the establishment of a new stroke center, as well as 0.60 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) per patient and an additional survival of 0.59 years per patient. The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was therefore CHF 13,297 per QALY gained. When societal costs were included, the new stroke care model was predicted to dominate the old care model. Robustness of model results was confirmed via probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results rely on data from a single stroke center and, therefore, cannot be generalized. Establishment of a new Stroke Center can be cost-effective and provide better outcomes in terms of functional independence as well as quality-adjusted life-years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Notfall & Rettungsmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Notfall & Rettungsmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

OBJECTIVE: Although oral bisphosphonates are effective treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, oral dosing may be unsuitable for some patients. An efficacious intravenously administered bisphosphonate could be beneficial for such patients. Ibandronate, a potent nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, can be administered using extended dosing intervals, either orally or by rapid intravenous injection. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal intravenous dosing regimen for ibandronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III, noninferiority study, we compared 2 regimens of intermittent intravenous injections of ibandronate (2 mg every 2 months and 3 mg every 3 months) with a regimen of 2.5 mg of oral ibandronate daily, the latter of which has proven antifracture efficacy. The study group comprised 1,395 women (ages 55-80 years) who were at least 5 years postmenopausal. All patients had osteoporosis (lumbar spine [L2-L4] bone mineral density [BMD] T score less than -2.5). Participants also received daily calcium (500 mg) and vitamin D (400 IU). The primary end point was change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 1 year. Changes in hip BMD and in the level of serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) were also measured, as were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: At 1 year, mean lumbar spine BMD increases were as follows: 5.1% among 353 patients receiving 2 mg of ibandronate every 2 months, 4.8% among 365 patients receiving 3 mg of ibandronate every 3 months, and 3.8% among 377 patients receiving 2.5 mg of oral ibandronate daily. Both of the intravenous regimens not only were noninferior, but also were superior (P < 0.001) to the oral regimen. Hip BMD increases (at all sites) were also greater in the groups receiving medication intravenously than in the group receiving ibandronate orally. Robust decreases in the serum CTX level were observed in all arms of the study. Both of the intravenous regimens were well tolerated and did not compromise renal function. CONCLUSION: As assessed by BMD, intravenous injections of ibandronate (2 mg every 2 months or 3 mg every 3 months) are at least as effective as the regimen of 2.5 mg orally daily, which has proven antifracture efficacy, and are well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of risedronate once a week (35 mg and 50 mg) compared with risedronate 5 mg once daily in women with osteoporosis. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 2-year study; the primary efficacy assessment was performed after 1 year. Subjects were women aged 50 years or older who had been postmenopausal for at least 5 years, with either a bone mineral density (BMD) T-score of ?2.5 or lower (lumbar spine or proximal femur) or a T-score lower than ?2 and at least one prevalent vertebral fracture. Subjects received risedronate 5 mg once daily, 35 mg once a week or 50 mg once a week. All subjects also received 1 g daily of elemental calcium supplementation and supplemental vitamin D if the baseline serum levels were low. The primary efficacy measure was percent change in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months. A total of 1456 women were randomized and received medication; 1209 (83%) women completed 12 months. The mean percent change (SE) in lumbar spine BMD after 12 months was 4.0% (0.2%) in the 5 mg daily group, 3.9% (0.2%) in the 35 mg group, and 4.2% (0.2%) in the 50 mg group; each once-a-week treatment was determined to be as effective as the daily treatment. Outcomes of the secondary efficacy measurements and safety assessments were also similar in all 3 groups after 12 months. Risedronate 35 mg and 50 mg once a week provide the same efficacy and safety as the daily 5 mg regimen; therefore, the lower dose, 35 mg once a week, is considered optimal for women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who desire a once-a-week regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the clinical trial that investigates the effect of desonumab on bone density and turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass after long-term continued, discontinued, and restarting therapy. It states that the women with a spine T-score of -1.8 to -3.5 were randomized to the human monoclonal antibody denosumab, to placebo, and to open-label oral alendronate every week. Details on the findings of the trial are also provided.