RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) use and out-of-hospital ventricular arrhythmia among the pediatric and young adult population. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study using US claims data from 2007 to 2018. Cases were subjects with at least 1 event between ages 2 and 24 years. Controls (matched 10:1 on index date, age, sex, and continuous enrollment) had no events during study period. Independent association between current SSRI use (prescription fill with continuous exposure ending on, or after, the index date) and incident out-of-hospital ventricular arrhythmia (hospitalization or emergency room encounter with primary diagnostic code for ventricular arrhythmia) was estimated using multivariable conditional logistic regression. Separate analyses were performed for pediatric (2-17 years of age) vs young adult (18-24 years of age) subjects and between citalopram/escitalopram vs other SSRIs. RESULTS: During the study period, 237 eligible cases were identified with 2370 matched controls. Cases were more likely to have government insurance and have a mental health, cardiac, or other complex chronic condition. Thirteen cases (5%) and 15 controls (<1%) had current SSRI exposure. After adjustment for mental health and chronic conditions, there was an increased odds of current SSRI use among cases compared with controls (OR 5.11, 95% CI 1.22-21.37). No difference was observed between pediatric and young adult ages, nor between citalopram/escitalopram and other SSRIs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate increased odds of out-of-hospital ventricular arrhythmia associated with SSRI use in the pediatric and young adult population, suggesting a need for heightened awareness and ongoing monitoring of this potential adverse effect.
Asunto(s)
Arritmias Cardíacas/epidemiología , Inhibidores Selectivos de la Recaptación de Serotonina/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Factores de Edad , Arritmias Cardíacas/diagnóstico , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Niño , Preescolar , Citalopram/uso terapéutico , Escitalopram/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Oportunidad Relativa , Factores de Riesgo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different modalities of centralized reminder/recall (autodialer, text, mailed reminders) on increasing childhood influenza vaccination. STUDY DESIGN: Two simultaneous randomized clinical trials conducted from October 2017 to April 1, 2018, in New York State and Colorado. There were 61 931 children in New York (136 practices) and 23 845 children in Colorado (42 practices) who were randomized to different centralized reminder/recall modalities-4 arms in New York (autodialer, text, mailed, and no reminder control) and 3 arms in Colorado (autodialer, mailed, and no reminder control). The message content was similar across modalities. Up to 3 reminders were sent for intervention arms. The main outcome measure was receipt of ≥1 influenza vaccine. RESULTS: In New York, compared with the control arm (26.6%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates in the autodialer arm (28.0%) were 1.4 percentage points higher (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), but the rates for text (27.6%) and mail (26.8%) arms were not different from controls. In Colorado, compared with the control arm (29.9%), postintervention influenza vaccination rates for the autodialer (32.9%) and mail (31.5%) arms were 3.0 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12) and 1.6 percentage points (adjusted risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10) higher, respectively. Compared with the control arm, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was $20 (New York) and $16 (Colorado) for autodialer messages. CONCLUSIONS: Centralized reminder/recall for childhood influenza vaccine was most effective via autodialer, less effective via mail, and not effective via text messages. The impact of each modality was modest. Compared with no reminders, the incremental cost per additional vaccine delivered was also modest for autodialer messages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03294473 and NCT03246100.
Asunto(s)
Programas de Inmunización/organización & administración , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Sistemas Recordatorios , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Colorado , Humanos , Lactante , New York , Envío de Mensajes de TextoAsunto(s)
Honorarios Médicos , Gastos en Salud , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva/economía , Neoplasias/economía , Neoplasias/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto , Humanos , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva/métodos , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva/normas , Neoplasias/inmunología , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras B/economía , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras B/inmunología , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras B/terapia , Receptores de Antígenos de Linfocitos T/administración & dosificación , IncertidumbreRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Patients in the ICU are at the greatest risk of contracting healthcare-associated infections like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. This study calculates the cost-effectiveness of methicillin-resistant S aureus prevention strategies and recommends specific strategies based on screening test implementation. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from the hospital perspective was conducted to determine if the implementation costs of methicillin-resistant S aureus prevention strategies are justified by associated reductions in methicillin-resistant S aureus infections and improvements in quality-adjusted life years. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined the influence of input variation on the cost-effectiveness. SETTING: ICU. PATIENTS: Hypothetical cohort of adults admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Three prevention strategies were evaluated, including universal decolonization, targeted decolonization, and screening and isolation. Because prevention strategies have a screening component, the screening test in the model was varied to reflect commonly used screening test categories, including conventional culture, chromogenic agar, and polymerase chain reaction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Universal and targeted decolonization are less costly and more effective than screening and isolation. This is consistent for all screening tests. When compared with targeted decolonization, universal decolonization is cost-saving to cost-effective, with maximum cost savings occurring when a hospital uses more expensive screening tests like polymerase chain reaction. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with screening and isolation, the current standard practice in ICUs, targeted decolonization, and universal decolonization are less costly and more effective. This supports updating the standard practice to a decolonization approach.