IFX exposure below 3 μg/mL increases risk of ATIs. Identification of influential pharmacokinetics and ATI factors improves prediction of IFX levels, potentially allowing individualized dosing and cost reduction.
Burkitt lymphoma is an aggressive B cell malignancy accounting for 1–2% of all adult lymphomas. Treatment with dose-intensive, multi-agent chemotherapy is effective but associated with considerable toxicity. In this observational study, we compared real-world efficacy, toxicity, and costs of four frequently employed treatment strategies for Burkitt lymphoma: the Lymphome Malins B (LMB), the Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM), the HOVON, and the CODOX-M/IVAC regimens. We collected data from 147 adult patients treated in eight referral centers. Following central pathology assessment, 105 of these cases were accepted as Burkitt lymphoma, resulting in the following treatment groups: LMB 36 patients, BFM 19 patients, HOVON 29 patients, and CODOX-M/IVAC 21 patients (median age 39 years, range 14–74; mean duration of follow-up 47 months). There was no significant difference between age, sex ratio, disease stage, or percentage HIV-positive patients between the treatment groups. Five-year progression-free survival (69%, p = 0.966) and 5-year overall survival (69%, p = 0.981) were comparable for all treatment groups. Treatment-related toxicity was also comparable with only hepatotoxicity seen more frequently in the CODOX/M-IVAC group (p = 0.004). Costs were determined by the number of rituximab gifts and the number of inpatients days. Overall, CODOX-M/IVAC had the most beneficial profile with regards to costs, treatment duration, and percentage of patients completing planned treatment. We conclude that the four treatment protocols for Burkitt lymphoma yield nearly identical results with regards to efficacy and safety but differ in treatment duration and costs. These differences may help guide future choice of treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00277-017-3167-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Purpose
Understanding the etiology of older persons’ emergency department (ED) visits is highly needed. Many contributing factors have been identified, however, the role their interactions play remains unclear. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs), as conceptual models, can visualize these interactions and therefore may elucidate their role. This study aimed to better understand why people older than 65 years of age visit the ED in Amsterdam by capturing the interactions of contributing factors as perceived by an expert group in a CLD through group model building (GMB).
Methods
Six qualitative online focus group like sessions, known as GMB, were conducted with a purposefully recruited interdisciplinary expert group of nine that resulted in a CLD that depicted their shared view.
Results
The CLD included four direct contributing factors, 29 underlying factors, 66 relations between factors and 18 feedback loops. The direct factors included, ‘acute event’, ‘frailty’, ‘functioning of the healthcare professional’ and ‘availability of alternatives for the ED’. All direct factors showed direct as well as indirect contribution to older persons’ ED visits in the CLD through interaction.
Conclusion
Functioning of the healthcare professional and availability of alternatives for the ED were considered pivotal factors, together with frailty and acute event. These factors, as well as many underlying factors, showed extensive interaction in the CLD, thereby contributing directly and indirectly to older persons’ ED visits. This study helps to better understand the etiology of older persons’ ED visits and in specific the way contributing factors interact. Furthermore, its CLD can help to find solutions for the increasing numbers of older adults in the ED.
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.