Practice Variability in Screening and Treating Pediatric Critical Illness Delirium: Survey.

The best practice in pediatric delirium (PD) screening and treatment is still unknown. Current recommendations come from small studies and adult data. In this article, we surveyed the Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowship directors on PD screening and treatment practices in their centers. We reported high variability in the screening and treatment practices for PD in large academic medical centers in the United States. The Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium tool is the most commonly used tool for screening, and quetiapine is the most commonly used pharmacologic agent. A national guideline on PD screening, prevention, and treatment is needed to standardize practice and provide guidance.

Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures.

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

EXAMINING EVIDENCE IN U.S. PAYER COVERAGE POLICIES FOR MULTI-GENE PANELS AND SEQUENCING TESTS.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for multi-gene panels and sequencing tests (panels), and to compare these findings with the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions. METHODS: We used the University of California at San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Registry to identify coverage policies for panels issued by five of the largest US private payers. We reviewed each policy and categorized the evidence cited within as: clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), budget impact studies, and clinical guidelines. We compared the evidence cited in these coverage policies for panels with the evidence cited in policies for other intervention types (pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tests and imaging, and surgical interventions) as reported in a previous study. RESULTS: Fifty-five coverage policies for panels were included. On average, payers cited clinical guidelines in 84 percent of their coverage policies (range, 73-100 percent), clinical studies in 69 percent (50-87 percent), technology assessments 47 percent (33-86 percent), systematic reviews or meta-analyses 31 percent (7-71 percent), and CEAs 5 percent (0-7 percent). No payers cited budget impact studies in their policies. Payers less often cited clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, and CEAs in their coverage policies for panels than in their policies for other intervention types. Payers cited clinical guidelines in a comparable proportion of policies for panels and other technology types. CONCLUSIONS: Payers in our sample less often cited clinical studies and other evidence types in their coverage policies for panels than they did in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions.

Three Sets of Case Studies Suggest Logic and Consistency Challenges with Value Frameworks.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the logic and consistency of three prominent value frameworks. METHODS: We reviewed the value frameworks from three organizations: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (DrugAbacus), the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. For each framework, we developed case studies to explore the degree to which the frameworks have face validity in the sense that they are consistent with four important principles: value should be proportional to a therapy's benefit; components of value should matter to framework users (patients and payers); attribute weights should reflect user preferences; and value estimates used to inform therapy prices should reflect per-person benefit. RESULTS: All three frameworks can aid decision making by elucidating factors not explicitly addressed by conventional evaluation techniques (in particular, cost-effectiveness analyses). Our case studies identified four challenges: 1) value is not always proportional to benefit; 2) value reflects factors that may not be relevant to framework users (patients or payers); 3) attribute weights do not necessarily reflect user preferences or relate to value in ways that are transparent; and 4) value does not reflect per-person benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Although the value frameworks we reviewed capture value in a way that is important to various audiences, they are not always logical or consistent. Because these frameworks may have a growing influence on therapy access, it is imperative that analytic challenges be further explored.

The Decline in Vitamin Research Funding: A Missed Opportunity?

Background: The National Nutrition Research Roadmap has called for support of greater collaborative, interdisciplinary research for multiple areas of nutrition research. However, a substantial reduction in federal funding makes responding to these calls challenging. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to examine temporal trends in research funding and to discuss the potential consequences of these trends. Methods: We searched the NIH RePORTER database to identify NIH research grants and USASpending to identify National Science Foundation and USDA research grants awarded from 1992 to 2015. We focused on those that pertained to vitamin research. For the years 2000 to 2015, we examined funding trends for different vitamins, including vitamins A, B (one-carbon B-vitamins were considered separately from other B-vitamins), C, D, E, and K. Results: From 1992 to 2015, total federal research spending increased from ∼$14 to $45 billion (2016 US dollars). Although vitamin research spending increased from ∼$89 to $95 million, the proportion of grants awarded for vitamin research declined by more than two-thirds, from 0.65% in 1992 to 0.2% in 2015. Federal agencies awarded 6035 vitamin research grants over the time period, with vitamin A associated with the most research projects per year on average (n = 115) and vitamin K the fewest (n = 8). Vitamin D research projects were associated with the greatest average yearly project value ($34.8 million). Conclusions: Vitamin research has faced a disproportionate decline in research funding from 1992 to 2015. Insufficient federal research funding streams risk stalling progress in vitamin research and leaving important advancements unrealized.

Increasing Infectious Endocarditis Admissions Among Young People Who Inject Drugs.

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for infective endocarditis (IE). Hospitalization rates related to misuse of prescription opioids and heroin have increased in recent years, but there are no recent investigations into rates of hospitalizations from injection drug use-related IE (IDU-IE). Using the Health Care and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) dataset, we found that the proportion of IE hospitalizations from IDU-IE increased from 7% to 12.1% between 2000 and 2013. Over this time period, we detected a significant increase in the percentages of IDU-IE hospitalizations among 15- to 34-year-olds (27.1%-42.0%; P < .001) and among whites (40.2%-68.9%; P < .001). Female gender was less common when examining all the IDU-IE (40.9%), but it was more common in the 15- to 34-year-old age group (53%). Our findings suggest that the demographics of inpatients hospitalized with IDU-IE are shifting to reflect younger PWID who are more likely to be white and female than previously reported. Future studies to investigate risk behaviors associated with IDU-IE and targeted harm reduction strategies are needed to avoid further increases in morbidity and mortality in this rapidly growing population of young PWID.

The risk of shorter fasting time for pediatric deep sedation.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics calls for prolonged fasting times before performing pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). PSA is increasingly provided to children outside of the operating theater by sedation trained pediatric providers and does not require airway manipulation. We investigated the safety of a shorter fasting time compared to a longer and guideline compliant fasting time. We tried to identify the association between fasting time and sedation-related complications. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study that included children 2 months to 18 years of age and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification of I or II, who underwent deep sedation for elective procedures, performed by pediatric critical care providers. Procedures included radiologic imaging studies, electroencephalograms, auditory brainstem response, echocardiograms, Botox injections, and other minor surgical procedures. Subjects were divided into two groups depending on the length of their fasting time (4-6 h and >6 h). Complication rates were calculated and compared between the three groups. RESULTS: In the studied group of 2487 subjects, 1007 (40.5%) had fasting time of 4-6 h and the remaining 1480 (59.5%) subjects had fasted for >6 h. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the studied complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no difference in complication rate in regard to the fasting time among our subjects cohort, which included only healthy children receiving elective procedures performed by sedation trained pediatric critical care providers. This suggests that using shorter fasting time may be safe for procedures performed outside of the operating theater that does not involve high-risk patients or airway manipulation.

Variation in Private Payer Coverage of Rheumatoid Arthritis Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Payers in the United States issue coverage determinations to guide how their enrolled beneficiaries use prescription drugs. Because payers create their own coverage policies, how they cover drugs can vary, which in turn can affect access to care by beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To examine how the largest private payers based on membership cover drugs indicated for rheumatoid arthritis and to determine what evidence the payers reported reviewing when formulating their coverage policies. METHODS: Coverage policies issued by the 10 largest private payers that make their policies publicly available were identified for rheumatoid arthritis drugs. Each coverage determination was compared with the drug's corresponding FDA label and categorized according to the following: (a) consistent with the label, (b) more restrictive than the label, (c) less restrictive than the label, or (d) mixed (i.e., more restrictive than the label in one way but less restrictive in another). Each coverage determination was also compared with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2012 treatment recommendations and categorized using the same relative restrictiveness criteria. The policies were then reviewed to identify the evidence that the payers reported reviewing. The identified evidence was divided into the following 6 categories: randomized controlled trials; other clinical studies (e.g., observational studies); health technology assessments; clinical reviews; cost-effectiveness analyses; and clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of coverage determinations were more restrictive than the corresponding FDA label; 15% were consistent; 3% were less restrictive; and 13% were mixed. Thirty-four percent of coverage determinations were consistent with the ACR recommendations, 33% were more restrictive; 17% were less restrictive; and 17% were mixed. Payers most often reported reviewing randomized controlled trials for their coverage policies (an average of 2.3 per policy). The payers reported reviewing an average of 1.4 clinical guidelines, 1.1 clinical reviews, 0.8 other clinical studies, and 0.5 technology assessments per policy. Only 1 payer reported reviewing cost-effectiveness analyses. The evidence base that the payers reported reviewing varied in terms of volume and composition. CONCLUSIONS: Payers most often covered rheumatoid arthritis drugs more restrictively than the corresponding FDA label indication and the ACR treatment recommendations. Payers reported reviewing a varied evidence base in their coverage policies. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Genentech. Chambers has participated in a Sanofi advisory board, unrelated to this study. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest. Study concept and design were contributed by Chambers. Anderson, Wilkinson, and Chenoweth collected the data, assisted by Chambers, and data interpretation was primarily performed by Chambers, along with Anderson and with assistance from Wilkinson and Chenoweth. The manuscript was written primarily by Chambers, along with Wilkinson and with assistance from Anderson and Chenoweth. Chambers, Chenoweth, Wilkinson, and Anderson revised the manuscript.

Hepatitis C Screening in People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Lessons Learned From Syphilis Screening.

Background. The incidence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is increasing in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). New guidelines recommend annual screening for HCV, similar to recommendations for syphilis screening with rapid plasma reagin (RPR). Methods. This study compares the frequency of repeat HCV antibody (Ab) testing to repeat RPR testing in a retrospective chart review of 359 HCVAb-negative people living with HIV (PLWH) observed in an Infectious Diseases clinic. Patients were classified into risk groups based on sexual risk factors. Results. Although 85% of PLWH had repeat syphilis screening, less than two thirds had repeat HCVAb screening. The MSM status was associated with increased HCVAb and RPR testing (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6 and 5.9, respectively). Seven persons had incident HCV infection: 3 were MSM, and 4 had symptoms or abnormal laboratory results to prompt testing. Conclusions. Failure to find incident HCV infection in PLWH represents missed opportunities to cure HCV infection and prevent progressive liver disease. Further quality improvement studies are necessary to develop physician-focused interventions to increase HCV screening rates in PLWH.

Automated live cell imaging systems reveal dynamic cell behavior.

Automated time-lapsed microscopy provides unique research opportunities to visualize cells and subcellular components in experiments with time-dependent parameters. As accessibility to these systems is increasing, we review here their use in cell science with a focus on stem cell research. Although the use of time-lapsed imaging to answer biological questions dates back nearly 150 years, only recently have the use of an environmentally controlled chamber and robotic stage controllers allowed for high-throughput continuous imaging over long periods at the cell and subcellular levels. Numerous automated imaging systems are now available from both companies that specialize in live cell imaging and from major microscope manufacturers. We discuss the key components of robots used for time-lapsed live microscopic imaging, and the unique data that can be obtained from image analysis. We show how automated features enhance experimentation by providing examples of uniquely quantified proliferation and migration live cell imaging data. In addition to providing an efficient system that drastically reduces man-hours and consumes fewer laboratory resources, this technology greatly enhances cell science by providing a unique dataset of temporal changes in cell activity.