Viral aetiology of bronchiolitis in hospitalised children in Qatar.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is considered one of the earliest and most common causes of hospitalisation in young children. Development of molecular technologies allowed a better understanding of bronchiolitis aetiology. Results from cohort studies evaluating the association between single, multiple viral infections and clinical outcomes are conflicting. Data on viral bronchiolitis in children were found to be limited in Qatar. This study aimed to determine frequency and seasonal trends of viral pathogens causing acute bronchiolitis, and to explore association between viral pathogens, disease severity and length of stay (LOS). METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive study, including children admitted in 2010 and 2011 with acute bronchiolitis. Presenting history, physical examination and respiratory viral co-infections as detected by molecular assays were analysed. RESULTS: At least one virus was detected in 315/369 (85.4%) of included children with single and multiple viruses in 67 and 33% of cases respectively. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) was the most detected virus, accounting for 51.2% followed by rhinovirus (RV) in 25.5% of cases. Fall and summer admissions were associated with longer LOS. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, retraction (OR 3.96; 95% CI 1.64,9.59) and age group 1-3 months (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.06,9.05) were associated with longer LOS. Crepitation (OR 9.15; 95% CI 1.58,53.13), retraction (OR 4.10; 95% CI 1.05,16.12) and respiratory rate (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.28,1.66) were associated with moderate to severe bronchiolitis. Identifying the viral agent did not influence disease severity or LOS. CONCLUSION: Clinical presentation is of more relevance to LOS and disease severity than the detected viruses. Future studies should investigate the interplay between climate characteristics, population's factors and the most detectable circulating viruses.

Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a first-time analysis of the cost-effectiveness (CE) literature on chemotherapies, of all types, in cancer, in terms of trends and change over time, including the influence of industry funding. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: A wide range of cancer-related research settings within healthcare, including health systems, hospitals and medical centres. PARTICIPANTS: All literature comparative CE research of drug-based cancer therapies in the period 1986 to 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes are the literature trends in relation to journal subject category, authorship, research design, data sources, funds and consultation involvement. An additional outcome measure is the association between industry funding and study outcomes. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and the χ2, Fisher exact or Somer's D tests were used to perform non-parametric statistics, with a p value of <0.05 as the statistical significance measure. RESULTS: Total 574 publications were analysed. The drug-related CE literature expands over time, with increased publishing in the healthcare sciences and services journal subject category (p<0.001). The retrospective data collection in studies increased over time (p<0.001). The usage of prospective data, however, has been decreasing (p<0.001) in relation to randomised clinical trials (RCTs), but is unchanging for non-RCT studies. The industry-sponsored CE studies have especially been increasing (p<0.001), in contrast to those sponsored by other sources. While paid consultation involvement grew throughout the years, the declaration of funding for this is relatively limited. Importantly, there is evidence that industry funding is associated with favourable result to the sponsor (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates clear trends in how the CE cancer research is presented to the practicing community, including in relation to journals, study designs, authorship and consultation, together with increased financial sponsorship by pharmaceutical industries, which may be more influencing study outcomes than other funding sources.