Feasibility of Risk Factor-Based Screening for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following traumatic injury can have severe psychiatric consequences. Current recommendations from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma require implementing PTSD screening but specify neither who should be screened nor how. It is unknown whether narrowed screening selection criteria could identify an acceptable proportion of patients with PTSD. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the feasibility of implementing risk factor-based PTSD screening in trauma patients by evaluating the sensitivity and clinical practicality. METHODS: This is a prospective diagnostic study of a consecutive series of general ward patients at an urban Level I trauma center from December 2021 to March 2022. Screening indications included (a) interpersonal injury, (b) surgery, (c) intracranial hemorrhage, (d) less than 30 years of age, or (e) clinical suspicion. The protocol was assessed by measuring the proportion of positive screens captured by only clinical suspicion to estimate sensitivity and by qualitatively evaluating barriers to implementation. RESULTS: Among the 200 patients screened, the number of patients who screened positive was 51 (25.5%). Eight patients were screened on clinical suspicion alone, seven (87.5%) of whom had positive screens, compared with 44 of the 192 (22.9%) patients who were screened for indications. Thus, 7 of 51 (13.7%; 95% confidence interval: 6.8%-26.7%) patients with PTSD-level symptoms would not have been screened on the basis of their risk factors. There were also practical difficulties in implementation. CONCLUSION: Limiting PTSD screening to only those injured patients with additional risk factors would have reduced overall sensitivity at our center. Consequently, we have implemented universal screening instead.

Clinical Experience using Osimertinib in Patients with Recurrent Malignant Gliomas Containing EGFR Alterations.

Background: EGFR alterations are commonly observed in malignant gliomas (MG). Osimertinib, an irreversible EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, effectively penetrates the blood brain barrier and achieves therapeutic concentrations in brain tissue. Materials and Methods: This retrospective chart review identified six patients with recurrent MG and EGFR alterations who received osimertinib. Results: Four patients were assessed for response. One patient had a partial response, two patients achieved stable disease and one was refractory. One patient with an EGFR vIII rearrangement remained on treatment for 236 days and a second patient with an EGFR vIII mutation remained on treatment for 294 days and continued on treatment at the time of analysis. Thrombocytopenia occurred in two patients, one patient developed grade 1 diarrhea and pneumonia, and another patient developed grade 1 mucositis. Conclusion: Osimertinib had a tolerable safety profile in this heavily pretreated brain tumor population. Osimertinib may benefit select patients with recurrent MG containing EGFR alterations.

The Cost Variability of Orthobiologics.

BACKGROUND: Mixed results exist regarding the benefit of orthobiologic injections. The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in costs for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cell (SC) injections and evaluate for variables that influence pricing. HYPOTHESIS: There will be significant variability in the cost of PRP and SC injections throughout the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: Calls were made to 1345 orthopaedic sports medicine practices across the United States inquiring into the availability of PRP or SC knee injections and associated costs. In addition to pricing, the practice type, number of providers, and population and income demographics were recorded. Univariate statistical analyses were used to identify differences in availability and cost between variables. RESULTS: Of the contacted offices that provided information on both PRP and SC availability (n = 1325), 268 (20.2%) offered both treatments, 550 (41.5%) offered only PRP injections, 20 (1.5%) offered only SC injections, and 487 (36.8%) did not offer either treatment. The mean ± SD cost of a PRP injection was $707 ± $388 (range, $175-$4973), and the mean cost of an SC injection was $2728 ± $1584 (range, $300-$12,000). Practices offering PRP and SC injections tended to be larger (PRP, 12.0 physicians per practice vs. 8.1 [P < 0.001]; SC, 13.6 vs 9.7 [P < 0.001]). Practices that offered PRP injections were located in areas with higher median household income (P = 0.047). Variables associated with higher cost of PRP injections included city population (P < 0.001) and median income of residents (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While the majority of sports medicine practices across the United States offer some type of orthobiologic injection, there exists significant variability in the cost of these injections. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates the significant variability in costs of orthobiologic injections throughout the country, which will allow sports medicine physicians to appreciate the value of these injections when counseling patients on available treatment options.