Drezotomía en el tratamiento del dolor por desaferentización: revisión de resultados y análisis de factores predictores de éxito

Background and objectivesThe treatment of deafferentation pain by spinal DREZotomy is a proven therapeutic option in the literature. In recent years, use of DREZotomy has been relegated to second place due to the emergence of neuromodulation therapies. The objectives of this study are to demonstrate that DREZotomy continues to be an effective and safe treatment and to analyse predictive factors for success.Patients and methodsA retrospective study was conducted of all patients treated in our department with spinal DREZotomy from 1998 to 2018. Bulbar DREZotomy procedures were excluded. A visual analogue scale (VAS) and the reduction of routine medication were used as outcome variables. Demographic, clinical and operative variables were analysed as predictive factors for success.ResultsA total of 27 patients (51.9% female) with a mean age of 53.7 years underwent DREZotomy. The main cause of pain was brachial plexus injury (BPI) (55.6%) followed by neoplasms (18.5%). The mean time of pain evolution was 8.4 years with a mean intensity of 8.7 according to the VAS, even though 63% of the patients had previously received neurostimulation therapy. Favourable outcome (≥ 50% pain reduction in the VAS) was observed in 77.8% of patients during the postoperative period and remained in 59.3% of patients after 22 months average follow-up (mean reduction of 4.9 points). This allowed for a reduction in routine analgesic treatment in 70.4% of them. DREZotomy in BPI-related pain presented a significantly higher success rate (93%) than the other pathologies (41.7%) (p = .001). No association was observed between outcome and age, gender, DREZ technique, duration of pain or previous neurostimulation therapies. There were six neurological complications, four post-operative transient neurological deficits and two permanent deficits.ConclusionDorsal root entry zone surgery is effective and safe for treating patients with deafferentation pain, especially after brachial plexus injury. It can be considered an alternative treatment after failed neurostimulation techniques for pain control. However, its indication should be considered as the first therapeutic option after medical therapy failure due to its good long-term results.     

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions.Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting.Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey.Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.Subject terms: Breast cancer, Surgical oncology, Health care economics, Quality of life, Health policy     

The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: Use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization

BackgroundResearchers are working at unprecedented speed to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the value of a hypothetical vaccine and its potential public health impact when prioritization is required due to supply constraints.MethodsA Markov cohort model was used to estimate COVID-19 related direct medical costs and deaths in the United States (US), with and without implementation of a 60% efficacious vaccine. To prioritize the vaccine under constrained supply, the population was divided into tiers based on age; risk and age; and occupation and age; and outcomes were compared across one year under various supply assumptions. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus no vaccine was calculated for the entire adult population and for each tier in the three prioritization schemes.ResultsThe incremental cost per QALY gained for the US adult population was $8,200 versus no vaccination. For the tiers at highest risk of complications from COVID-19, such as those ages 65 years and older, vaccination was cost-saving compared to no vaccination. The cost per QALY gained increased to over $94,000 for those with a low risk of hospitalization and death following infection. Results were most sensitive to infection incidence, vaccine price, the cost of treating COVID-19, and vaccine efficacy. Under the most optimistic supply scenario, the hypothetical vaccine may prevent 31% of expected deaths. As supply becomes more constrained, only 23% of deaths may be prevented. In lower supply scenarios, prioritization becomes more important to maximize the number of deaths prevented.ConclusionsA COVID-19 vaccine is predicted to be good value for money (cost per QALY gained <$50,000). The speed at which an effective vaccine can be made available will determine how much morbidity and mortality may be prevented in the US.