Quality of life and functioning of Hispanic patients with Major Depressive Disorder before and after treatment.

BACKGROUND: Similar rates of remission from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) have been documented between ethnic groups in response to antidepressant treatment. However, ethnic differences in functional outcomes, including patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and functioning, have not been well-characterized. We compared symptomatic and functional outcomes of antidepressant treatment in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with MDD. METHODS: We analyzed 2280 nonpsychotic treatment-seeking adults with MDD who received citalopram monotherapy in Level 1 of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression study. All subjects (239 Hispanic, 2041 non-Hispanic) completed QOL, functioning, and depressive symptom severity measures at entry and exit. RESULTS: Hispanic participants had significantly worse QOL scores at entry and exit (p < 0.01). However, after controlling for baseline QOL, there was no difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients' QOL at exit (p = 0.21). There were no significant between-group differences at entry or at exit for depressive symptom severity or functioning. Both groups had significant improvements in depressive symptom severity, QOL, and functioning from entry to exit (all p values < 0.01). Patients with private insurance had lower depressive symptom severity, greater QOL, and better functioning at exit compared to patients without private insurance. LIMITATIONS: This study was a retrospective data analysis, and the Hispanic group was relatively small compared to the non-Hispanic group. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic and non-Hispanic participants with MDD had similar responses to antidepressant treatment as measured by depressive symptom severity scores, quality of life, and functioning. Nevertheless, Hispanic patients reported significantly worse quality of life at entry.

What is the Long-term Economic Societal Effect of Periprosthetic Infections After THA? A Markov Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current estimates for the direct costs of a single episode of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after THA are approximately USD 100,000. These estimates do not account for the costs of failed treatments and do not include indirect costs such as lost wages. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The goal of this study was to estimate the long-term economic effect to society (direct and indirect costs) of a PJI after THA treated with contemporary standards of care in a hypothetical patient of working age (three scenarios, age 55, 60, and 65 years). METHODS: We created a state-transition Markov model with health states defined by surgical treatment options including irrigation and débridement with modular exchange, single-stage revision, and two-stage revision. Reoperation rates attributable to septic and aseptic failure modes and indirect and direct costs were calculated estimates garnered via multiple systematic reviews of peer-reviewed orthopaedic and infectious disease journals and Medicare reimbursement data. We conducted an analysis over a hypothetical patient's lifetime from the societal perspective with costs discounted by 3% annually. We conducted sensitivity analysis to delineate the effects of uncertainty attributable to input variables. RESULTS: The model found a base case cost of USD 390,806 per 65-year-old patient with an infected THA. One-way sensitivity analysis gives a range of USD 389,307 (65-year-old with a 3% reinfection rate) and USD 474,004 (55-year-old with a 12% reinfection rate). Indirect costs such as lost wages make up a considerable portion of the costs and increase considerably as age at the time of infection decreases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the overall treatment of a periprosthetic infection after a THA is markedly more expensive to society than previously estimated when accounting for the considerable failure rates of current treatment options and including indirect costs. These overall costs, combined with a large projected increase in THAs and a steady state of septic failures, should be taken into account when considering the total cost of THA. Further research is needed to adequately compare the clinical and economic effectiveness of alternative treatment pathways. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis.

The Basics of the Sunshine Act: How It Pertains to the Practicing Orthopaedic Surgeon.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act is a disclosure law requiring all drug, medical device, and biologics companies to report transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals. It was passed into law in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act. The first set of data was released via an online public database on September 30, 2014, with subsequent annual reports to come. Three categories of payments are recorded: general payments, ownership interests, and research payments. With few exceptions, any transfer of value greater than $10 is reported. The first dataset of 4.4 million payments totaling more than $3.5 billion was released amidst controversy and technical problems. Identified data constituted $1.3 billion in transfer payments; de-identified data constituted $2.2 billion in payments. Data regarding an additional $1.1 billion in payments were not published, in part because of unresolved disputes. The largest amount of funding went to research payments. The highest proportion of general payments went to licensing and royalty payments. Orthopaedic surgeons comprised 3.5% of the physicians represented, and they were responsible for more than 20% of total payments. The full impact of the Sunshine Act will not be clear until several years after its implementation.