Health-related quality of life anticipated with different management strategies for febrile neutropenia in adult cancer patients

PURPOSE: To describe anticipated health-related quality of life (HRQL) for different hypothetical strategies of febrile neutropenia (FN) management in adult cancer patients. METHODS: Seventy-eight adult cancer patients were enrolled. Our study considered four different hypothetical treatment strategies for FN: (1) entire inpatient management with intravenous (IV) antibiotics; (2) oral treatment at home after an initial observation in hospital with IV antibiotics; (3) entire outpatient management with IV antibiotics; and (4) entire outpatient management with oral antibiotics. Initially, patients were asked to rank the different treatment strategies for FN based on their personal preference. Subsequently, HRQL was rated using visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and willingness-to-pay (WTP). RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of all respondents preferred an outpatient strategy for FN (36% oral, 21% intravenous, 18% early discharge). Further, outpatient strategies were associated with higher mean VAS scores (possible range 0-10) (oral: 6.1 (standard deviation (SD) 3.1); intravenous: 6.2 (SD 2.2); early discharge: 5.7 (SD 2.1)) as compared to inpatient care (5.3 (SD 2.9)). On the aggregate level, patients were willing to give up between 9 and 10 weeks of their life (TTO; corresponding to <1% of remaining life expectancy) and to pay between $255 and $327 Canadian dollars (WTP) to avoid treatment in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the majority of adult cancer patients would prefer an outpatient strategy for FN. However, patients' preferences vary substantially at the individual level. Implementation of outpatient strategies into routine clinical practice should consider this variability.

Impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on dyspepsia, health resource use, and quality of life in the Bristol helicobacter project: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a community based Helicobacter pylori screening and eradication programme on the incidence of dyspepsia, resource use, and quality of life, including a cost consequences analysis. DESIGN: H pylori screening programme followed by randomised placebo controlled trial of eradication. SETTING: Seven general practices in southwest England. PARTICIPANTS: 10,537 unselected people aged 20-59 years were screened for H pylori infection (13C urea breath test); 1558 of the 1636 participants who tested positive were randomised to H pylori eradication treatment or placebo, and 1539 (99%) were followed up for two years. INTERVENTION: Ranitidine bismuth citrate 400 mg and clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily for two weeks or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care consultation rates for dyspepsia (defined as epigastric pain) two years after randomisation, with secondary outcomes of dyspepsia symptoms, resource use, NHS costs, and quality of life. RESULTS: In the eradication group, 35% fewer participants consulted for dyspepsia over two years compared with the placebo group (55/787 v 78/771; odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.94; P = 0.021; number needed to treat 30) and 29% fewer participants had regular symptoms (odds ratio 0.71, 0.56 to 0.90; P = 0.05). NHS costs were 84.70 pounds sterling (74.90 pounds sterling to 93.91 pounds sterling) greater per participant in the eradication group over two years, of which 83.40 pounds sterling (146 dollars; 121 euro) was the cost of eradication treatment. No difference in quality of life existed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Community screening and eradication of H pylori is feasible in the general population and led to significant reductions in the number of people who consulted for dyspepsia and had symptoms two years after treatment. These benefits have to be balanced against the costs of eradication treatment, so a targeted eradication strategy in dyspeptic patients may be preferable.

Microalbuminuria in diabetes mellitus: efficacy of a new screening method in comparison with timed overnight urine collection

Diabetic nephropathy and end-stage renal failure are still a major cause of mortality amongst patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). In this study, we evaluated the Clinitek-Microalbumin (CM) screening test strip for the detection of microalbuminuria (MA) in a random morning spot urine in comparison with the quantitative assessment of albuminuria in the timed overnight urine collection ("gold standard"). One hundred thirty-four children, adolescents, and young adults with insulin-dependent DM Type 1 were studied at 222 outpatient visits. Because of urinary tract infection and/or haematuria, the data of 13 visits were excluded. Finally, 165 timed overnight urine were collected in the remaining 209 visits (79% sample per visit rate). Ten (6.1%) patients presented MA of > or =15 microg/min. In comparison however, 200 spot urine could be screened (96% sample/visit rate) yielding a significant increase in compliance and screening rate (P<.001, McNemar test). Furthermore, at 156 occasions, the gold standard and CM could be directly compared. The sensitivity and the specificity for CM in the spot urine (cut-off > or =30 mg albumin/l) were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.99] and 0.73 (CI 0.66-0.80), respectively. The positive and negative predictive value were 0.17 (CI 0.08-0.30) and 0.99 (CI 0.95-1.00), respectively. Considering CM albumin-to-creatinine ratio, the results were poorer than with the albumin concentration alone. Using CM instead of quantitative assessment of albuminuria is not cost-effective (35 US dollars versus 60 US dollars/patient/year). In conclusion, to exclude MA, the CM used in the random spot urine is reliable and easy to handle, but positive screening results of > or =30 mg albumin/l must be confirmed by analyses in the timed overnight collected urine. Although the screening compliance is improved, in terms of analysing random morning spot urine for MA, we cannot recommend CM in a paediatric diabetic outpatient setting because the specificity is far too low.