Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-effectiveness of Strategies for Adults Experiencing Sheltered Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Approximately 356 000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the United States. They have high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To assess the estimated clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 2258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts. Cohort characteristics and costs were adapted from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were taken from published literature and national databases. Surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re], 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively) were examined. Costs were from a health care sector perspective, and the time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. Exposures: Daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals with positive symptom screening results, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternative care sites (ACSs) for mild or moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing were each compared with no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case of COVID-19 prevented. Results: The simulated population of 2258 sheltered homeless adults had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (9.04) years. Compared with no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild or moderate disease was associated with 37% fewer infections (1954 vs 1239) and 46% lower costs ($6.10 million vs $3.27 million) at an Re of 2.6, 75% fewer infections (538 vs 137) and 72% lower costs ($1.46 million vs $0.41 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 51% fewer infections (174 vs 85) and 51% lower costs ($0.54 million vs $0.26 million) at an Re of 0.9. Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with a further decrease in infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1000 at an Re of 2.6, $27 000 at an Re of 1.3, and $71 000 at an Re of 0.9. Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more expensive than other options. Compared with no intervention, temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was associated with 81% fewer infections (376) and 542% higher costs ($39.12 million) at an Re of 2.6, 82% fewer infections (95) and 2568% higher costs ($38.97 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 59% fewer infections (71) and 7114% higher costs ($38.94 million) at an Re of 0.9. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. Conclusions and Relevance: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.

Study protocol for a comparative effectiveness trial of two models of perinatal integrated psychosocial assessment: the PIPA project.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining psychosocial and depression assessment programs in maternity settings have not adequately considered the context in which psychosocial assessment occurs or how broader components of integrated care, including clinician decision-making aids, may optimise program delivery and its cost-effectiveness. There is also limited evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of symptom-based screening measures used in this context. The Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA) Project was developed to address these knowledge gaps. The primary aims of the PIPA Project are to examine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of two alternative models of integrated psychosocial care during pregnancy: 'care as usual' (the SAFE START model) and an alternative model (the PIPA model). The acceptability and perceived benefit of each model of care from the perspective of both pregnant women and their healthcare providers will also be assessed. Our secondary aim is to examine the psychometric properties of a number of symptom-based screening tools for depression and anxiety when used in pregnancy. METHODS: This is a comparative-effectiveness study comparing 'care as usual' to an alternative model sequentially over two 12-month periods. Data will be collected from women at Time 1 (initial antenatal psychosocial assessment), Time 2 (2-weeks after Time 1) and from clinicians at Time 3 for each condition. Primary aims will be evaluated using a between-groups design, and the secondary aim using a within group design. DISCUSSION: The PIPA Project will provide evidence relating to the clinical- and cost- effectiveness of psychosocial assessment integrated with electronic clinician decision making prompts, and referral options that are tailored to the woman's psychosocial risk, in the maternity care setting. It will also address research recommendations from the Australian (2011) and NICE (2015) Clinical Practice Guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12617000932369.

Achalasia-an unnecessary long way to diagnosis.

Although achalasia presents with typical symptoms such as dysphagia, regurgitation, weight loss, and atypical chest pain, the time until first diagnosis often takes years and is frustrating for patients and nevertheless associated with high costs for the healthcare system. A total of 563 patients were interviewed with confirmed diagnosis of achalasia regarding their symptoms leading to diagnosis along with past clinical examinations and treatments. Included were patients who had undergone their medical investigations in Germany. Overall, 527 study subjects were included (male 46%, female 54%, mean age at time of interview 51 ± 14.8 years). Dysphagia was present in 86.7%, regurgitation in 82.9%, atypical chest pain in 79%, and weight loss in 58% of patients before diagnosis. On average, it took 25 months (Interquartile Range (IQR) 9-65) until confirmation of correct diagnosis of achalasia. Though, diagnosis was confirmed significantly quicker (35 months IQR 9-89 vs. 20 months IQR 8-53; p < 0.01) in the past 15 years. The majority (72.1%) was transferred to three or more specialists. Almost each patient underwent at least one esophagogastroduodenoscopy (94.2%) and one radiological assessment (89.3%). However, esophageal manometry was performed in 70.4% of patients only. The severity of symptoms was independent with regard to duration until first diagnosis (Eckardt score 7.14 ± 2.64 within 12 months vs. 7.29 ± 2.61 longer than 12 months; P = 0.544). Fifty-five percent of the patients primarily underwent endoscopic dilatation and 37% a surgical myotomy. Endoscopic dilatation was realized significantly faster compared to esophageal myotomy (1 month IQR 0-4 vs. 3 months IQR 1-11; p < 0.001). Although diagnosis of achalasia was significantly faster in the past 15 years, it still takes almost 2 years until the correct diagnosis of achalasia is confirmed. Alarming is the fact that although esophageal manometry is known as the gold standard to differentiate primary motility disorders, only three out of four patients had undergone this diagnostic pathway during their diagnostic work-up. Better education of medical professionals and broader utilization of highly sensitive diagnostic tools, such as high-resolution manometry, are strictly necessary in order to correctly diagnose affected patients and to offer therapy faster.

Our continuing exploration of medically unexplained symptoms.

In this issue, the reader will find three articles examining different but converging perspectives on medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). In the first article, Gates, Petterson, Wingrove, Miller, and Klink (2016) examined 110,000 office visits to primary care providers between 2002 and 2010. In the second article, Clarke (2016), an internist and gastroenterologist, presents a model for diagnosing and treating MUS. The person most referenced in the first two articles and author of the landmark study-Kroenke (2016) writes the third article, an invited commentary. Kroenke eloquently reviews the major issues confronting health care clinicians dealing with MUS. We hope that readers of the three articles on MUS in this issue will reflect on their own practice, share these articles and their impressions with colleagues, and consider ways to improve the service and consultation designs in their practice settings. Those who teach behavioral health clinicians and physicians will surely be reinforced or reinvigorated to focus on ways to help patients and colleagues. (PsycINFO Database Record

Targeted case finding for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease versus routine practice in primary care (TargetCOPD): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remain undiagnosed worldwide. Health-care organisations are implementing case-finding programmes without good evidence of which are the most effective and cost-effective approaches. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative approaches to targeted case finding for COPD compared with routine practice. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, participating general practices in the West Midlands, UK, were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated block randomisation sequence, to either a targeted case-finding group or a routine care group. Eligible patients were ever-smokers aged 40-79 years without a previously recorded diagnosis of COPD. Patients in the targeted case-finding group were further randomly assigned (1:1) via their household to receive either a screening questionnaire at the general practitioner (GP) consultation (opportunistic) or a screening questionnaire at the GP consultation plus a mailed questionnaire (active). Respondents reporting relevant respiratory symptoms were invited for post-bronchodilator spirometry. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were not masked to allocation, but group allocation was concealed from the researchers who performed the spirometry assessments. Primary outcomes were the percentage of the eligible population diagnosed with COPD within 1 year (defined as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <0·7 in patients with symptoms or a new diagnosis on their GP record) and cost per new COPD diagnosis. Multiple logistic and Poisson regression were used to estimate effect sizes. Costs were obtained from the trial. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14930255. FINDINGS: From Aug 10, 2012, to June 22, 2014, 74 818 eligible patients from 54 diverse general practices were randomly assigned and completed the trial. At 1 year, 1278 (4%) cases of COPD were newly detected in 32 789 eligible patients in the targeted case-finding group compared with 337 (1%) cases in 42 029 patients in the routine care group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 7·45 [95% CI 4·80-11·55], p<0·0001). The percentage of newly detected COPD cases was higher in the active case-finding group (822 [5%] of 15 378) than in the opportunistic case-finding group (370 [2%] of 15 387; adjusted OR 2·34 [2·06-2·66], p<0·0001; adjusted risk difference 2·9 per 100 patients [95% CI 2·3-3·6], p<0·0001). Active case finding was more cost-effective than opportunistic case finding (£333 vs £376 per case detected, respectively). INTERPRETATION: In this well established primary care system, routine practice identified few new cases of COPD. An active targeted approach to case finding including mailed screening questionnaires before spirometry is a cost-effective way to identify undiagnosed patients and has the potential to improve their health. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Assessment criteria for compensation of occupational bladder cancer.

In Germany, more than 100 bladder tumor cases are annually recognized as occupational disease and compensated, given that medical experts regard exposure to carcinogenic aromatic amines as a likely cause of cancer. The amount of compensation is initially based on the tumor staging and grading at the time of initial diagnosis ("basic MdE") (MdE--reduction of earning capacity) and is adapted after a recurrence-free period of 2 and 5 years, respectively. In the event of treatment or tumor-related secondary conditions, the monthly compensation increases based on the severity of the objectified functional disorder. In the following article, medical experts specializing in this field provide a complete list of all known disorders, including treatment-related loss of a kidney or erectile dysfunction. In addition, the weighting of medical criteria in the assessment and calculation of the compensation is analyzed in greater detail. Since the given criteria are based on comprehensible experiences of urologists with their patients, they also provide medical experts in other countries with valuable points of reference for the calculation of the compensation.

Consistency of assessments and willingness to pay for a reduction in morning symptoms over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the variation in morning symptoms and in the corresponding monetary equivalents assigned to their reduction. METHODS: The sampled (n = 100) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were interviewed twice by a trained interviewer using the same interview, 2 weeks apart. Patients assessed fatigue, pain, and severity of morning stiffness (MS) on waking up and after maximum improvement on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients estimated the duration of MS in minutes and reported the number of tender and swollen joints. Patients were also asked to estimate how much they would be willing to pay on a daily basis if pain, duration of MS, and severity of MS when waking up could be reduced by 25, 50, 75, and 100%. Weighted averages of the monetary assessments for symptom reduction were computed. RESULTS: On average, the NRS values at the first and second assessments were close to each other, except for fatigue and pain, which were significantly lower (p < 0.01) in the second assessment. There was limited within-patient variation, with the majority of symptom assessments within a range of ±10%. Weighted average willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were consistent across time points for reduction in pain and MS severity and duration. Changes in symptom assessments were reflected in the WTP estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The duration and severity of MS seemed to be more consistent over time than pain and fatigue. WTP estimates and their changes corresponded closely to changes in symptom assessments.