No abstract

Background Oxygen is vital in the treatment of illnesses in children and adults, yet is lacking in many low and middle-income countries health care settings. Oxygen concentrators (OCs) can increase access to oxygen, compared to conventional oxygen cylinders. We investigated the costs and critical success factors of OCs in three hospitals in Fiji, and extrapolated these to estimate the oxygen delivery cost to all Sub-Divisional hospitals (SDH) nationwide. Methods Data sources included key personnel interviews, and data from SDH records, Ministry of Health and Medical Services, and a non-governmental organisation. We used Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) to define key issues. An economic case was developed to identify the investment option that optimised value while incorporating critical success factors identified through ILM. A fit-for-purpose analysis was conducted using cost analysis of four short-listed options. Sensitivity analyses were performed by altering variables to show the best or worst case scenario. All costs are presented in Fijian dollars. Results Critical success factors identifed included oxygen availability, safety, ease of use, feasibility, and affordability. Compared to the status quo of having only oxygen cylinders, an option of having a minimum number of concentrators with cylinder backup would cost $434,032 (range: $327,940 to $506,920) over 5 years which would be 55% (range: 41 to 64%) of the status quo cost. Conclusion Introducing OCs into all SDHs in Fiji would reduce overall costs, while ensuring identified critical success factors are maintained. This study provides evidence for the benefits of OCs in this and similar settings.

No abstract

Objective: In a post-hoc analysis of a multinational, randomized trial, we investigated whether the efficacy and safety of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and ramipril differed between Chinese and European patients with hypertension.Method: Previously treated (2-week washout) and untreated patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to treatment with nifedipine GITS 30 mg or ramipril 10 mg for 12 months, if they had elevated clinic (≧ 140/90 mmHg) and daytime (≧ 135/85 mmHg) ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP) and standard deviation of home (> 7 mmHg) and daytime systolic BP (> 12 mmHg). BP was measured at each of the clinic visits at baseline and during follow-up. Ambulatory and 7-day home BP monitoring were performed at baseline and 10 weeks and 12 months of follow-up. Results:The 67 Chinese and 101 European patients significantly differed in age (50.9 vs. 54.6 years), body mass index (24.5 vs. 27.0 kg/m2), clinic diastolic BP (87.9 vs. 92.5 mmHg), clinic heart rate (75.0 vs. 70.8 beats/minute) and nighttime diastolic BP (79.3 vs. 75.9 mmHg). However, within each ethnicity, patients were comparable between the nifedipine GITS and ramipril groups (P≧ 0.05). In both Chinese and European patients, BP was similarly reduced in the nifedipine GITS and ramipril groups, except that daytime systolic/diastolic BP reductions were 7.4/4.1 mmHg greater in the ramipril than nifedipine GITS group in Chinese (P = 0.02). The safety profile significantly (P for drug*ethnicity interaction ≦ 0.046) differed between the Chinese and European patients for the incidence of all adverse events (lower on nifedipine GITS in Chinese), ankle edema (higher on nifedipine GITS in Europeans) and dry cough (higher on ramipril in Chinese). Conclusion:In the Chinese and European patients with hypertension, nifedipine GITS and ramipril had similar BP lowering efficacy, but different safety profile and tolerability.