RESUMO
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Identification of HIV remains a critical health priority for which emergency departments (EDs) are a central focus. The comparative cost-effectiveness of various HIV screening strategies in EDs remains largely unknown. The goal of this study was to compare programmatic costs and cost-effectiveness of nontargeted and 2 forms of targeted opt-out HIV screening in EDs using results from a multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This economic evaluation was nested in the HIV Testing Using Enhanced Screening Techniques in Emergency Departments (TESTED) trial, a multicenter pragmatic clinical trial of different ED-based HIV screening strategies conducted from April 2014 through January 2016. Patients aged 16 years or older, with normal mental status and not critically ill, or not known to be living with HIV were randomized to 1 of 3 HIV opt-out screening approaches, including nontargeted, enhanced targeted, or traditional targeted, across 4 urban EDs in the United States. Each screening method was fully integrated into routine emergency care. Direct programmatic costs were determined using actual trial results, and time-motion assessment was used to estimate personnel activity costs. The primary outcome was newly diagnosed HIV. Total annualized ED programmatic costs by screening approach were calculated using dollars adjusted to 2023 as were costs per patient newly diagnosed with HIV. One-way and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The trial randomized 76,561 patient visits, resulting in 14,405 completed HIV tests, and 24 (0.2%) new diagnoses. Total annualized new diagnoses were 12.9, and total annualized costs for nontargeted, enhanced targeted, and traditional targeted screening were $111,861, $88,629, and $70,599, respectively. Within screening methods, costs per new HIV diagnoses were $20,809, $23,554, and $18,762, respectively. Enhanced targeted screening incurred higher costs but with similar annualized new cases detected compared with traditional targeted screening. Nontargeted screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,586 when compared with traditional targeted screening. Results were most sensitive to HIV prevalence and costs of HIV tests. CONCLUSION: Nontargeted HIV screening was more costly than targeted screening largely due to an increased number of HIV tests performed. Each HIV screening strategy had similar within-strategy costs per new HIV diagnosis with traditional targeted screening yielding the lowest cost per new diagnosis. For settings with budget constraints or very low HIV prevalences, the traditional targeted approach may be preferred; however, given only a slightly higher cost per new HIV diagnosis, ED settings looking to detect the most new cases may prefer nontargeted screening.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Infecções por HIV , Programas de Rastreamento , Humanos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/economia , Infecções por HIV/diagnóstico , Infecções por HIV/economia , Programas de Rastreamento/economia , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Feminino , Adulto , Masculino , Estados Unidos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Teste de HIV/economia , Teste de HIV/métodos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Arritmias Cardíacas/epidemiologia , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Fatores Etários , Arritmias Cardíacas/diagnóstico , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Citalopram/uso terapêutico , Escitalopram/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Razão de Chances , Fatores de Risco , Adulto JovemRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Programas de Imunização/organização & administração , Vacinas contra Influenza , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Sistemas de Alerta , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Colorado , Humanos , Lactente , New York , Envio de Mensagens de TextoAssuntos
Honorários Médicos , Gastos em Saúde , Imunoterapia Adotiva/economia , Neoplasias/economia , Neoplasias/terapia , Ensaios Clínicos Fase II como Assunto , Humanos , Imunoterapia Adotiva/métodos , Imunoterapia Adotiva/normas , Neoplasias/imunologia , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras B/economia , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras B/imunologia , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras B/terapia , Receptores de Antígenos de Linfócitos T/administração & dosagem , IncertezaRESUMO
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.