Decreasing Admissions to the NICU: An Official Transition Bed for Neonates.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the need to decrease healthcare costs. One approach may be minimizing use of low-value care by reducing the number of unnecessary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions through the use of official neonatal transition beds. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether transition beds decrease unnecessary NICU admissions and estimate the cost savings of this practice change. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined the records of all neonates of 350/7 weeks' gestational age and greater with birth weights of 2000 g and more admitted to a neonatal transition bed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. Outcomes evaluated were number of neonates returned to their mothers and an estimate of dollars saved for a 1-year period. RESULTS: A total of 194 neonates were admitted to transition beds, which resulted in 144 NICU admissions averted. Respiratory distress was the most common reason for admission to transition beds. There was a statistically significant difference in length of stay in transition beds between neonates admitted to the NICU and those returned to couplet care after admission to transition beds (135.92 minutes vs 159.27 minutes; P = .047). There was no difference in gestational age based on admission to NICU or returned to couplet care (37.9 weeks vs 38 weeks; P = .772). The estimated cost savings was $3000 per neonate returned to couplet care totaling $432,000 annually. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of neonatal transition beds is a potential strategy to decrease unnecessary NICU admissions and reduce low value care. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Research regarding potential benefits of transition beds including the effect on hospital resources and low-value care at other institutions is needed. Additional research regarding potential benefits to the family including parent satisfaction and the effect of transition beds on rates of breastfeeding and skin-to-skin care is important.

Suitability of Placental Blood Samples of Newborns for Pre-Transfusion Testing.

Objective: To show concordance between heel stick and placental blood sample pairs for newborns' pre-transfusion testing and to validate placental blood's tube and gel methodology. Methods: Placental samples were collected for pre-transfusion testing at birth from 78 singleton and twin newborns admitted to our Mother-Baby Unit to compare with the results of heel stick samples taken from same newborns. Gestational age ≥35 weeks, weight ≥2,000 g. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Informed consent was obtained from newborn parents. ABO blood group, Rhesus factor (Rh), direct antiglobulin test (DAT), and antibody screen were performed. Ortho ProVue Analyzer was used for tube and gel methods. McNemar's test for paired categorical data was performed. Results: One hundred percent concordance in 78 pairs for ABO and Rh. Seventy-four pairs were tested for antibodies, 72 were both negative, 1 was both positive, and 1 gave discordant result. Ninety-nine percent concordance, p = 0.999. Sixty-five pairs were both DAT negative, seven were both DAT positive, and six gave discordant results. Ninety-two percent concordance, p = 0.68. Placental blood gave identical results comparing tube with gel methods. Conclusions: Placental blood is suitable for pre-transfusion testing and can replace heel sticks. Placental blood tube and gel methods are validated.

Efficacy and safety of innovator versus generic drugs in patients with epilepsy: a systematic review.

Generic antiepileptic drugs achieve blood concentrations similar to those of innovator drugs in healthy volunteers, but their comparative effectiveness has not been well evaluated. Thus, we assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of innovator versus generic antiepileptic drugs. We searched the MEDLINE database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science for studies that evaluated innovator and generic antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy and reported data on prespecified outcomes. We extracted data on study design, interventions, quality criteria, study population, baseline characteristics, and outcomes. Compared with initiation of innovator antiepileptic drugs, initiation of generic antiepileptic drugs did not significantly alter seizure occurrence (relative risk [RR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.18; strength of evidence: low) or frequency (standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.08-0.14; strength of evidence: low), withdrawals due to lack of efficacy (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41-2.54; strength of evidence: low) or adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.28-2.20; strength of evidence: low), pharmacokinetic concentrations (maximum, minimum, or area under the curve [strength of evidence: low]), or a myriad of adverse events (strength of evidence: low or insufficient) in clinical trials. In qualitatively evaluated observational studies, switching between forms of antiepileptic drug (innovator to generic, generic to generic) may increase the risk of hospitalization (strength of evidence: low), hospital stay duration (strength of evidence: low), and a composite end point of medical service utilization (strength of evidence: insufficient) but may not increase outpatient service utilization (strength of evidence: low). Data are limited predominantly to carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproic acid. Clinical trials are limited by small sample size, short-term nature, and lack of specification of A-rated generic products (generics that the United States Food and Drug Administration has deemed bioequivalent to the innovator drug). Observational trials lack full accounting for confounders and have inherent limitations. With a low strength of evidence, it appears that initiating an innovator or generic antiepileptic drug will provide similar efficacy, tolerability, and safety but that switching from one form to the other may be associated with more hospitalizations and longer hospital stays.