Adopting a palliative care mindset is an unmet need in Parkinson's disease.

Introduction: Parkinson's disease (PD) affects multiple facets of patients' lives, many of which may not be recognized or addressed by their healthcare team. A growing body of evidence has shown that palliative care improves patients' quality of life with PD; however, little is currently known about how patients with PD perceive palliative care. Methods: An 8-question multiple choice survey was created and given to patients with established care for PD at a movement disorders clinic in a quaternary care center. Patients with less than two years of follow-up or that had atypical features of PD were excluded from the survey. Results: There were 106 respondents to the survey. A third of patients reported having never heard of palliative care and an additional 25% had heard of it but did not know what it was. Eighty-eight percent reported being familiar with or very knowledgeable about hospice, though 50% of respondents did not know the difference between hospice and palliative care. 93% had never been offered either service. 37.7% thought their neurologist should discuss advance care planning early in the course of their disease. Conclusion: Even among established patients with Parkinson's disease in a quaternary center, over half were not familiar with palliative care, and the majority had never been offered palliative or hospice services despite growing evidence that it could improve their quality of life. Additionally, patients would like to be introduced to advanced care planning early in the course of their disease.

Positron emission tomography costs less to patients than conventional screening for malignancy in dermatomyositis.

BACKGROUND: Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with malignancy and interstitial lung disease. Many malignancies associated with DM occur in organs not routinely screened by national guidelines; thus, best screening practices are still debated. Positron emission tomography (PET) has been suggested as a single study alternative to more complex screening panels and may also be valuable in detecting interstitial lung disease progression. Criticisms of PET screening exams have focused on cost and radiation exposure. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of PET and its variants to conventional malignancy screening panels, and to review concerns regarding radiation exposure in PET. METHODS: Four variants of PET and PET-CT were included in the study. The conventional screening panel was defined as CT of the abdomen and pelvis without contrast, CT of the thorax without contrast, CEA, CA 19.9, PSA (men), mammography (women), transvaginal ultrasound (women), cytopathology (women), and CA 125 (women). The MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database, a collection of private insurance claims data from 53 million Americans, was queried for every instance of each test from 2005 to 2014 and the mean inflation-adjusted cost of each was recorded. The mean total cost to insurance companies and the mean out-of-pocket costs to patients for PET variants were compared to the costs for conventional panels. Additionally, the cost of pulmonary function tests (PFT) from the same period was evaluated. RESULTS: From 2005-2014, the mean inflation-adjusted costs of PET have trended downward, but the mean cost of PET-CT have trended upward. The mean total cost to insurance companies for PET-CT whole body was $730.70 and $537.62 greater than the cost of conventional panels for men and women, respectively. The out-of-pocket patient costs for PET-CT whole body was $109.82 and $111.33 less than the cost of conventional panels for men and women, respectively. The mean total cost of PFT was $205.02. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PET-CT whole body was greater than conventional panels for insurance companies, but patient out-of-pocket costs were lower. PET-CT may also have added value in detecting and monitoring interstitial lung disease progression in DM patients. More data are needed on the efficacy of PET-CT in detecting malignancy in DM patients; however, the cost difference is less than expected, suggesting the single scan could be a reasonable alternative to the conventional screening panel in some patients.

Sub-national variation in measles vaccine coverage and outbreak risk: a case study from a 2010 outbreak in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Despite progress towards increasing global vaccination coverage, measles continues to be one of the leading, preventable causes of death among children worldwide. Whether and how to target sub-national areas for vaccination campaigns continues to remain a question. We analyzed three metrics for prioritizing target areas: vaccination coverage, susceptible birth cohort, and the effective reproductive ratio (RE) in the context of the 2010 measles epidemic in Malawi. METHODS: Using case-based surveillance data from the 2010 measles outbreak in Malawi, we estimated vaccination coverage from the proportion of cases reporting with a history of prior vaccination at the district and health facility catchment scale. Health facility catchments were defined as the set of locations closer to a given health facility than to any other. We combined these estimates with regional birth rates to estimate the size of the annual susceptible birth cohort. We also estimated the effective reproductive ratio, RE, at the health facility polygon scale based on the observed rate of exponential increase of the epidemic. We combined these estimates to identify spatial regions that would be of high priority for supplemental vaccination activities. RESULTS: The estimated vaccination coverage across all districts was 84%, but ranged from 61 to 99%. We found that 8 districts and 354 health facility catchments had estimated vaccination coverage below 80%. Areas that had highest birth cohort size were frequently large urban centers that had high vaccination coverage. The estimated RE ranged between 1 and 2.56. The ranking of districts and health facility catchments as priority areas varied depending on the measure used. CONCLUSIONS: Each metric for prioritization may result in discrete target areas for vaccination campaigns; thus, there are tradeoffs to choosing one metric over another. However, in some cases, certain areas may be prioritized by all three metrics. These areas should be treated with particular concern. Furthermore, the spatial scale at which each metric is calculated impacts the resulting prioritization and should also be considered when prioritizing areas for vaccination campaigns. These methods may be used to allocate effort for prophylactic campaigns or to prioritize response for outbreak response vaccination.