BACKGROUND: Pediatric early warning systems (PEWS) aid in the early identification of deterioration in hospitalized children with cancer; however, they are under-used in resource-limited settings. The authors use the knowledge-to-action framework to describe the implementation strategy for Proyecto Escala de Valoracion de Alerta Temprana (EVAT), a multicenter quality-improvement collaborative, to scale-up PEWS in pediatric oncology centers in Latin America. METHODS: Proyecto EVAT mentored participating centers through an adaptable implementation strategy to: (1) monitor clinical deterioration in children with cancer, (2) contextually adapt PEWS, (3) assess barriers to using PEWS, (4) pilot and implement PEWS, (5) monitor the use of PEWS, (6) evaluate outcomes, and (7) sustain PEWS. The implementation outcomes assessed included the quality of PEWS use, the time required for implementation, and global program impact. RESULTS: From April 2017 to October 2021, 36 diverse Proyecto EVAT hospitals from 13 countries in Latin America collectively managing more than 4100 annual new pediatric cancer diagnoses successfully implemented PEWS. The time to complete all program phases varied among centers, averaging 7 months (range, 3-13 months) from PEWS pilot to implementation completion. All centers ultimately implemented PEWS and maintained high-quality PEWS use for up to 18 months after implementation. Across the 36 centers, more than 11,100 clinicians were trained in PEWS, and more than 41,000 pediatric hospital admissions had PEWS used in their care. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based interventions like PEWS can be successfully scaled-up regionally basis using a systematic approach that includes a collaborative network, an adaptable implementation strategy, and regional mentorship. Lessons learned can guide future programs to promote the widespread adoption of effective interventions and reduce global disparities in childhood cancer outcomes. Cancer 2022;128:4004-4016.
32-36Resumen Antecedentes: La neutropenia febril (NF) es una de las principales complicaciones de los pacientes oncológicos, que incrementa exponencialmente los costos del tratamiento. El pegfilgrastim es la forma pegilada del filgrastim y podría disminuir la severidad y duración de la NF, así como los costos. Objetivo: Analizar el costo-beneficio del tratamiento profiláctico de la NF con pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim en pacientes pediátricos con tumores sólidos. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio de costo-beneficio en el cual se analizaron los expedientes clínicos completos de pacientes pediátricos con tumores sólidos y NF que recibieron tratamiento profiláctico con pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim. Se consideraron las variables clí-nico-demográficas, los eventos de NF y los días de estancia hospitalaria, así como las complicaciones y el costo global relacionados, con búsqueda de diferencias mediante t de Student y χ 2 . Resultados: Se incluyeron 26 pacientes con un total de 106 cursos de quimioterapia. A 14 (53.8%) pacientes se les administró filgrastim y 12 (46.1%) recibieron pegfilgrastim. El 57.6% eran del género masculino. El promedio de días de estancia hospitalaria y el costo fueron significativamente mayores en el grupo de filgrastim que en el de pegfilgrastim (p < 0.001). Conclusión: El uso del pegfilgrastim disminuyó el número de eventos de neutropenia y fiebre, los días de estancia hospitalaria y los costos hasta en un 30%. (creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). *E-mail para correspondencia: oncouaem2009@hotmail.com (N.A. López-Facundo) ARTÍCULO ORIGINAL Estudio de costo-beneficio del tratamiento profiláctico de la neutropenia febril con pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim en pacientes pediátricos con tumores sólidos
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.