Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oral ivermectin is recommended as an alternative to topical permethrin in Japanese, European, and CDC-STI guidelines for treating classic scabies. The combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is also used in some settings. Partial economic evaluations conducted in India and Egypt have conflicting results, and no cost-effectiveness analysis in the Philippines has compared ivermectin-based regimens to permethrin for scabies treatment. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin, compared to permethrin, in the treatment of Filipino adult patients with classic scabies.

We used a decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two regimens, oral ivermectin alone or in combination with permethrin, compared with permethrin to treat adults and children aged five years and older with classic scabies in the outpatient setting from the household perspective in the Philippines. We estimated total costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a one-month follow-up. Input parameters were obtained from secondary data, such as effect estimates for probabilities of clinical outcomes from a network meta-analysis, DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease 2019, and prevailing market cost in the Philippines (DPRI 2022 with recommended markup by DOH, and leading drugstores) as of August 2022. We computed for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to determine which of the interventions are cost-effective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty.

Ivermectin-based regimens are suggested to be likely cost-saving compared to permethrin in the Philippine outpatient setting. Base case analysis showed that oral ivermectin had higher cost-savings (change in cost, -1,039.31; change in DALYS, 0.00027), while combination oral ivermectin/permethrin had higher DALYs averted (change in cost, PhP -1,019.78; change in DALYs, 0.00045), compared to permethrin. Combination oral ivermectin/permethrin (56%) was the most cost-effective, followed by oral ivermectin (44%) compared to permethrin (0%) through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Estimates for ivermectin were sensitive to risk of cure for ivermectin vs permethrin using 1-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Oral ivermectin was favored over combination oral ivermectin/permethrin at all thresholds based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Both ivermectin-based regimens seem to be cost-saving compared to permethrin in the treatment of classic scabies in the Philippine outpatient setting. Clinicians may consider oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin as an alternative first-line or second-line treatment depending on patient preference, adverse event risk profile, availability, and economic capacity. This needs to be confirmed using primary data from Filipino patients to enhance the robustness of the findings and support evidence-based local decision-making in different settings. Less uncertainty in modelled parameters can give greater confidence in the results, which can be adopted for budget impact analysis and allow more rational resource allocation. Value of information analysis can be done to determine whether the expense of future RCTs or surveys in Filipinos to collect primary data is worth it. The cost of reducing uncertainty, if deemed worth the cost of further studies, may facilitate population-level decision-making and budget planning. Findings may further inform practice guideline development, coverage decisions, and national control program planning by providing the most cost-effective scabies intervention.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Background and Objective: Oral ivermectin is recommended as an alternative to topical permethrin in Japanese, European, and CDC-STI guidelines for treating classic scabies. The combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is also used in some settings. Partial economic evaluations conducted in India and Egypt have conflicting results, and no cost-effectiveness analysis in the Philippines has compared ivermectin-based regimens to permethrin for scabies treatment. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin, compared to permethrin, in the treatment of Filipino adult patients with classic scabies. Methods: We used a decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two regimens, oral ivermectin alone or in combination with permethrin, compared with permethrin to treat adults and children aged five years and older with classic scabies in the outpatient setting from the household perspective in the Philippines. We estimated total costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a one-month follow-up. Input parameters were obtained from secondary data, such as effect estimates for probabilities of clinical outcomes from a network meta-analysis, DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease 2019, and prevailing market cost in the Philippines (DPRI 2022 with recommended markup by DOH, and leading drugstores) as of August 2022. We computed for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to determine which of the interventions are cost-effective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty. Results: Ivermectin-based regimens are suggested to be likely cost-saving compared to permethrin in the Philippine outpatient setting. Base case analysis showed that oral ivermectin had higher cost-savings (change in cost, -1,039.31; change in DALYS, 0.00027), while combination oral ivermectin/permethrin had higher DALYs averted (change in cost, PhP -1,019.78; change in DALYs, 0.00045), compared to permethrin. Combination oral ivermectin/permethrin (56%) was the most cost-effective, followed by oral ivermectin (44%) compared to permethrin (0%) through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Estimates for ivermectin were sensitive to risk of cure for ivermectin vs permethrin using 1-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Oral ivermectin was favored over combination oral ivermectin/permethrin at all thresholds based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Conclusion Both ivermectin-based regimens seem to be cost-saving compared to permethrin in the treatment of classic scabies in the Philippine outpatient setting. Clinicians may consider oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin as an alternative first-line or second-line treatment depending on patient preference, adverse event risk profile, availability, and economic capacity. This needs to be confirmed using primary data from Filipino patients to enhance the robustness of the findings and support evidence-based local decision-making in different settings. Less uncertainty in modelled parameters can give greater confidence in the results, which can be adopted for budget impact analysis and allow more rational resource allocation. Value of information analysis can be done to determine whether the expense of future RCTs or surveys in Filipinos to collect primary data is worth it. The cost of reducing uncertainty, if deemed worth the cost of further studies, may facilitate population-level decision-making and budget planning. Findings may further inform practice guideline development, coverage decisions, and national control program planning by providing the most cost-effective scabies intervention.
Scabies ; Ivermectin ; Permethrin ; Cost-Benefit Analysis

Background: Based on the 2017-2020 annual report of the Department of Health-Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Program, significant resistance patterns have been observed for common disease-causing pathogens. In the hospital setting, antimicrobial stewardship programs have been implemented to optimize the use of antimicrobials. Drug utilization review studies provide essential feedback to improve prescribing and use of medications. Objectives: This study aimed to review drug utilization of monitored parenteral antimicrobials among patients admitted from January to December 2019. Methods: The study employed a retrospective, cross-sectional, descriptive research design. A retrospective chart review of drugs administered to patients was conducted. : Results. A total of 821 patients charts met the inclusion criteria. The patients’ ages ranged from 18 to 98 years old and 52% were females. General Internal Medicine practitioners (28%) were the top prescribers of monitored parenteral antimicrobials primarily for the management of moderate-risk community-acquired pneumonia (39%). They were mostly indicated for empirical treatment of infections (94%) and were given for an average of 5.73 days. Only 58% of the total cases had orders for culture and sensitivity testing. Of which, principally 47% had colony cultures. Blood (29%) and sputum (27%) were the most common specimens taken for culture and sensitivity testing. The microorganisms often isolated were Escherichia coli (19%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (18%), and Staphylococcus aureus (9%). In addition, extended-spectrum beta lactamase-producing gram-negative pathogens (4%) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (1%) were also isolated. All the microorganisms isolated showed most resistance to ampicillin (81%) and most susceptibility to colistin (100%). There were drug therapy-related problems encountered. There was one case of an adverse drug reaction (0.1%) and two cases of contraindications (0.2%). Therapeutic duplication was also observed in 5% of the cases. Moreover, 39% had instances of drug-drug interactions.Piperacillin-tazobactam had the highest consumption (79.50 defined daily doses/1,000-patient days) among the monitored parenteral antimicrobials. Some prescriptions were deemed inappropriate upon evaluation. 12% of cases were inappropriate based on the justification indicator. As for the critical indicators, duration of therapy (78%) was the main reason. Only four components of the DUE criteria indicators have met or exceeded the established threshold level.The cost analysis indicated that the total actual cost of therapy with the monitored parenteral antimicrobials amounted to ₱17,645,601.73. Considering Department of Health National Antibiotic Guidelines recommenda-tions, ideal total cost of treatment was ₱14,917,214.29. Potential cumulative cost savings of ₱2,728,387.44 could have been achieved for patients admitted last 2019. Conclusion Consumption of piperacillin-tazobactam was relatively high as compared to the other monitored parenteral antimicrobials covered in this study. Physicians at the study site seldom prescribe monitored parenteral antimicrobials as recommended by the National Antibiotic Guidelines. This is evidenced in the incidence of inappropriate therapy regimens, with inapt duration of therapy as the leading explanation.From the patient’s perspective, the main economic implication was on the direct medical costs, particularly the increased cost of the actual antimicrobial therapy prescribed to manage various infections. Adherence of physicians to the established guidelines and selection of the most cost-effective therapy could have resulted in considerable cost savings.
Drug Utilization Review ; Antimicrobial Stewardship

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oral ivermectin, a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic drug, alone or in combination with permethrin, may be a cheaper and more convenient alternative drug to topical permethrin alone in the treatment of classic scabies. There are no previous studies on the treatment acceptability of the three interventions among individual patients with scabies in the Philippines. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences and perceptions on treatment acceptability for oral ivermectin, topical permethrin or combination treatment among patients with scabies using the multiple-case study approach.

We conducted a qualitative multiple case study among adult Filipino patients with classic scabies who were prescribed oral ivermectin, topical permethrin or its combination at a government tertiary hospital dermatology outpatient clinic from December 2022 to September 2023. Semi-structured interviews were used as the primary source of data and analyzed together with chart reviews, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores, and clinical images. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and triangulated with other secondary data. A three-person research team employed a reflexive and iterative process of familiarization, coding, and thematic analysis using a modified Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) to generate case descriptions, within-case analyses, and cross-case syntheses.

The acceptability of scabies treatments (permethrin, ivermectin, and combination therapy) was generally positive. Permethrin, used in three patient cases, was generally perceived as effective but itch relief varied. The burden of whole-body application of permethrin was context-dependent, influenced by living arrangements and family support. Perceived affordability of permethrin was linked to socioeconomic status. Ivermectin, used by one patient case, was perceived as highly effective with no side effects. Its single dose use did not interfere with patient routine. Combination therapy was also considered effective but potential antagonistic effects and the cost of adding permethrin made it less preferred. Reluctance in taking oral pills was noted. All patients valued medical advice and deferred to their physicians for treatment decisions.

All three treatment options were considered effective and safe. Patients generally preferred permethrin over oral ivermectin due to its topical nature and perceived lower side effects. However, affordability and logistical challenges, especially for large households and low-income families, were noted with permethrin. Oral ivermectin elicited hesitation due to its controversial role in COVID-19 and veterinary use. Concerns about added costs and potential antagonism in combination therapy were raised. Despite these considerations, patients ultimately relied on physicians for treatment decisions. This study underscores the importance of understanding patient perspectives, experiences, and the patient-physician relationship in choosing scabies interventions. Addressing patient concerns, providing education, and ensuring ease of use and affordability can enhance treatment acceptability and adherence for better outcomes.

We hypothesized that the administration of amantadine would increase awakening of comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest. Methods We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial, randomizing subjects to amantadine 100 mg twice daily or placebo for up to 7 days. The study drug was administered between 72 and 120 hours after resuscitation and patients with absent N20 cortical responses, early cerebral edema, or ongoing malignant electroencephalography patterns were excluded. Our primary outcome was awakening, defined as following two-step commands, within 28 days of cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, awakening, time to awakening, and neurologic outcome measured by Cerebral Performance Category at hospital discharge. We compared the proportion of subjects awakening and hospital survival using Fisher exact tests and time to awakening and hospital length of stay using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results After 2 years, we stopped the study due to slow enrollment and lapse of funding. We enrolled 14 subjects (12% of goal enrollment), seven in the amantadine group and seven in the placebo group. The proportion of patients who awakened within 28 days after cardiac arrest did not differ between amantadine (n=2, 28.6%) and placebo groups (n=3, 42.9%; P>0.99). There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Study medication was stopped in three subjects (21.4%). Adverse events included a recurrence of seizures (n=2; 14.3%), both of which occurred in the placebo group. Conclusion We could not determine the effect of amantadine on awakening in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest due to small sample size.