Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement. DESIGN: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit. MEASURES: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Requirements and Study Designs for U.S. Regulatory Approval of Influenza Home Tests.

Home testing for infectious disease has come to the forefront during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is now considerable commercial interest in developing complete home tests for a variety of viral and bacterial pathogens. However, the regulatory science around home infectious disease test approval and procedures that test manufacturers and laboratory professionals will need to follow have not yet been formalized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with the exception of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) guidance for COVID-19 tests. We describe the state of home-based testing for influenza with a focus on sample-to-result home tests, discuss the various regulatory pathways by which these products can reach populations, and provide recommendations for study designs, patient samples, and other important features necessary to gain market access. These recommendations have potential application for home use tests being developed for other viral respiratory infections, such as COVID-19, as guidance moves from EUA designation into 510(k) requirements.

Patient and tumour characteristics of screening-age adults diagnosed with screen-detected versus symptomatic colon cancer.

AIM: International studies have shown that most colon cancers are diagnosed among people with symptoms, but research is limited in the United States. Here, we conducted a retrospective study of adults aged 50-85 years diagnosed with stage I-IIIA colon cancer between 1995 and 2014 in two US healthcare systems. METHODS: Mode of detection (screening or symptomatic) was ascertained from medical records. We estimated unadjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing detection mode by patient factors at diagnosis (year, age, sex, race, smoking status, body mass index [BMI], Charlson score), prediagnostic primary care utilization, and tumour characteristics (stage, location). RESULTS: Of 1,675 people with colon cancer, 38.4% were screen-detected, while 61.6% were diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. Screen-detected cancer was more common among those diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 versus 1995-1999 (OR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.19-2.28), and those with a BMI of 25-<30 kg/m2 (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.21-1.98) or ≥30 kg/m2 (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.18-1.96) versus <25 kg/m2 . Screen-detected cancer was less common among people aged 76-85 (OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39-0.65) versus 50-64, those with comorbidity scores >0 (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.91 for score = 1, OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.26-0.45 for score = 2+), and those with 2+ prediagnostic primary care visits (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37-0.76) versus 0 visits. The odds of screen detection were lower among patients diagnosed with stage IIA (OR 0.33, 95% CI = 0.27-0.41) or IIB (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.06-0.24) cancers versus stage I. CONCLUSIONS: Most colon cancers among screen-eligible adults were diagnosed following symptomatic presentation. Even with increasing screening rates over time, research is needed to better understand why specific groups are more likely to be diagnosed when symptomatic and identify opportunities for interventions.

Is Chemotherapy Associated with Improved Overall Survival in Patients with Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcoma? A SEER Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma is a chondrosarcoma subtype associated with high rates of recurrence and a poor prognosis. Others have proposed treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma using osteosarcoma protocols, including perioperative chemotherapy. However, the rarity of this condition poses difficulties in undertaking single- institution studies of sufficient sample size. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is perioperative chemotherapy associated with improved overall survival in patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma? METHODS: We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 1973 to 2016 database for patients with a diagnosis of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (n = 308). As dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma was only classified as a distinct entity in SEER starting in 2000, only patients treated in 2000 and later were included. We excluded from our analyses those patients with distant disease at diagnosis, a primary site of disease other than bone or joints, and those who did not receive cancer-directed surgery. These criteria yielded 185 dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma patients for inclusion. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association of clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: After controlling for confounding variables, including age, sex, tumor size, stage, grade, location, and radiation treatment status, and after adjusting for missing data, no overall survival benefit was associated with receipt of chemotherapy in patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.12]; p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma was not associated with improved OS. These results must be viewed cautiously, given the limited granularity of information on chemotherapy treatment, the concerns regarding chemotherapy misclassification in SEER data, and the small sample of patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, all of which limit the power to detect a difference. Our findings are nevertheless consistent with those of prior reports in which no benefit of chemotherapy could be detected. Lack of clear benefit from perioperative chemotherapy in dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma argues that it should be used only after careful consideration, and ideally in the context of a clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Outcomes of Patients with Sarcoma and COVID-19 Infection: A Single Institution Cohort Analysis.

Outcomes for patients (pts) with sarcoma and COVID-19 are unknown. This is a single institution retrospective study of adults with sarcoma and COVID-19. Ten pts [median age 60 (range 24-69)] were identified. Five were hospitalized; two died from COVID-19 complications; another died from sarcoma. Time between last systemic treatment dose and COVID-19 diagnosis was 6-41 days in pts who died. 5 underwent prior radiation (RT); time between RT and COVID-19 diagnosis was 20-62 days for pts who died. All three pts with WBC differential data (two died) were lymphopenic. Efforts to capture outcomes for a larger cohort are urgently needed.

Socio-economic factors do not affect overall survival in soft tissue sarcoma when patients treated at a single high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) include extensive surgical resection, radiation and chemotherapy, and can necessitate specialized care and excellent social support. Studies have demonstrated that socioeconomic factors, such as income, marital status, urban/rural residence, and educational attainment as well as treatment at high-volume institution may be associated with overall survival (OS) in STS. METHODS: In order to explore the effect of socio-economic factors on OS in patients treated at a high-volume center, we performed a retrospective analysis of STS patients treated at a single institution. RESULTS: Overall, 435 patients were included. Thirty-seven percent had grade 3 tumors and 44% had disease larger than 5 cm. Patients were most commonly privately insured (38%), married (67%) and retired or unemployed (43%). Median distance from the treatment center was 42 miles and median area deprivation index (ADI) was 5 (10 representing most deprived communities). The majority of patients (52%) were treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection. As expected, higher tumor grade (HR 3.1), tumor size > 5 cm (HR 1.3), and involved lymph nodes (HR 3.2) were significantly associated with OS on multivariate analysis. Demographic and socioeconomic factors, including sex, age at diagnosis, marital status, employment status, urban vs. rural location, income, education, distance to the treatment center, and ADI were not associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior studies, we did not identify a significant association between socioeconomic factors and OS of patients with STS when patients were treated at a single high-volume center. Treatment at a high volume institution may mitigate the importance of socio-economic factors in the OS of STS.

Evaluating an app-guided self-test for influenza: lessons learned for improving the feasibility of study designs to evaluate self-tests for respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Rapid self-tests could improve access to influenza testing in community settings. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile app-guided influenza rapid self-test for adults with influenza like illness (ILI), and identify optimal methods for conducting accuracy studies for home-based assays for influenza and other respiratory viruses. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited adults who self-reported ILI online. Participants downloaded a mobile app, which guided them through two low nasal swab self-samples. Participants tested the index swab using a lateral flow assay. Test accuracy results were compared to the reference swab tested in a research laboratory for influenza A/B using a molecular assay. RESULTS: Analysis included 739 participants, 80% were 25-64 years of age, 79% female, and 73% white. Influenza positivity was 5.9% based on the laboratory reference test. Of those who started their test, 92% reported a self-test result. The sensitivity and specificity of participants' interpretation of the test result compared to the laboratory reference standard were 14% (95%CI 5-28%) and 90% (95%CI 87-92%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A mobile app facilitated study procedures to determine the accuracy of a home based test for influenza, however, test sensitivity was low. Recruiting individuals outside clinical settings who self-report ILI symptoms may lead to lower rates of influenza and/or less severe disease. Earlier identification of study subjects within 48 h of symptom onset through inclusion criteria and rapid shipping of tests or pre-positioning tests is needed to allow self-testing earlier in the course of illness, when viral load is higher.

Bone Health Management After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: An Expert Panel Opinion from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy.

Bone health disturbances commonly occur after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) with loss of bone mineral density (BMD) and avascular necrosis (AVN) foremost among them. BMD loss is related to pretransplantation chemotherapy and radiation exposure and immunosuppressive therapy for graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) and results from deficiencies in growth or gonadal hormones, disturbances in calcium and vitamin D homeostasis, as well as osteoblast and osteoclast dysfunction. Although the pathophysiology of AVN remains unclear, high-dose glucocorticoid exposure is the most frequent association. Various societal treatment guidelines for osteoporosis exist, but the focus is mainly on menopausal-associated osteoporosis. HCT survivors comprise a distinct population with unique comorbidities, making general approaches to bone health management inappropriate in some cases. To address a core set of 16 frequently asked questions (FAQs) relevant to bone health in HCT, the American Society of Transplant and Cellular Therapy Committee on Practice Guidelines convened a panel of experts in HCT, adult and pediatric endocrinology, orthopedics, and oral medicine. Owing to a lack of relevant prospective controlled clinical trials that specifically address bone health in HCT, the answers to the FAQs rely on evidence derived from retrospective HCT studies, results extrapolated from prospective studies in non-HCT settings, relevant societal guidelines, and expert panel opinion. Given the heterogenous comorbidities and needs of individual HCT recipients, answers to FAQs in this article should be considered general recommendations, with good medical practice and judgment ultimately dictating care of individual patients. Readers are referred to the Supplementary Material for answers to additional FAQs that did not make the core set.

Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.

Relationship between microbiology of throat swab and clinical course among primary care patients with acute cough: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) account for most antibiotics prescribed in primary care despite lack of efficacy, partly due to clinician uncertainty about aetiology and patient concerns about illness course. Nucleic acid amplification tests could assist antibiotic targeting. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 645 patients presenting to primary care with acute cough and suspected ALRTI, provided throat swabs at baseline. These were tested for respiratory pathogens by real-time polymerase chain reaction and classified as having a respiratory virus, bacteria, both or neither. Three hundred fifty-four participants scored the symptoms severity daily for 1 week in a diary (0 = absent to 4 = severe problem). RESULTS: Organisms were identified in 346/645 (53.6%) participants. There were differences in the prevalence of seven symptoms between the organism groups at baseline. Those with a virus alone, and those with both virus and bacteria, had higher average severity scores of all symptoms combined during the week of follow-up than those in whom no organisms were detected [adjusted mean differences 0.204 (95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.398) and 0.348 (0.098 to 0.598), respectively]. There were no differences in the duration of symptoms rated as moderate or severe between organism groups. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in presenting symptoms and symptoms severity can be identified between patients with viruses and bacteria identified on throat swabs. The magnitude of these differences is unlikely to influence management. Most patients had mild symptoms at 7 days regardless of aetiology, which could inform patients about likely symptom duration.

Decision-making in Orthopaedic Oncology: Does Cognitive Bias Affect a Virtual Patient's Choice Between Limb Salvage and Amputation?

BACKGROUND: The local treatment of extremity sarcomas usually is predicated on a decision between limb salvage and amputation. The manner in which surgical options are presented in the context of shared decision-making may influence this decision. In a population of "simulated" patients-survey respondents presented with a mock clinical vignette and then asked to choose between treatments-we assessed cognitive bias by deliberate alteration of the subjective presentation of the same objective information. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Will the manner in which information is presented to a simulated patient, in the setting of treatment for a bone sarcoma, bias their decision regarding pursuing amputation versus limb salvage? (2) At the time of decision-making, will a simulated patient's personal background, demographics, or mood affect their ultimate decision? METHODS: Survey respondents (Amazon MTurk platform) were presented with mock clinical vignettes simulating a sarcoma diagnosis and were asked to choose between amputation and limb salvage. Specific iterations were designed to assess several described types of cognitive bias. These scenarios were distributed, using anonymous online surveys, to potential participants aged 18 years or older. Recruitment was geographically restricted to individuals in the United States. Overall, 404 respondents completed the survey. The average age of respondents was 33 years (SD 1.2 years), 60% were male and 40% were female. In all, 12% of respondents worked in healthcare. Each respondent also completed questions regarding his or her demographics and his or her current mood. Associations between the type of bias presented and the respondent's choice of limb salvage versus amputation were examined. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: When amputation was presented as an option to mitigate functional loss (framing bias), more patients chose it than when limb salvage was presented as means for increased functional gains (23% [23 of 100] versus 10% [12 of 118], odds ratio [OR], 2.26; p = 0.010). Older simulated patients were more likely to choose limb salvage when exposed to framing bias versus younger patients (mean age 33 years versus 30 years, p = 0.02). Respondents who were employed in healthcare more commonly chose amputation versus limb salvage when exposed to framing bias (24% [eight of 35] versus 9% [17 of 183]; OR, 2.46; p = 0.02). Those who chose amputation were more likely to score higher on scales that measured depression or negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making in orthopaedic oncology represents a unique circumstance in which several variables may influence a patient's decision between limb salvage and amputation. Invoking cognitive bias in simulated patients appeared to affect treatment decisions. We cannot be sure that these findings translate to the experience of actual sarcoma patients; however, we can conclude that important treatment decisions may be affected by cognitive bias and that patient characteristics (in this study, age, healthcare profession, and mood) may be associated with an individual's susceptibility to cognitive bias. We hope these observations will assist providers in the thoughtful delivery of highly charged information to patients facing difficult decisions, and promote further study of this important concept. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses.

Evaluating diagnostic strategies for early detection of cancer: the CanTest framework.

BACKGROUND: Novel diagnostic triage and testing strategies to support early detection of cancer could improve clinical outcomes. Most apparently promising diagnostic tests ultimately fail because of inadequate performance in real-world, low prevalence populations such as primary care or general community populations. They should therefore be systematically evaluated before implementation to determine whether they lead to earlier detection, are cost-effective, and improve patient safety and quality of care, while minimising over-investigation and over-diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic scoping review of frameworks for the evaluation of tests and diagnostic approaches. RESULTS: We identified 16 frameworks: none addressed the entire continuum from test development to impact on diagnosis and patient outcomes in the intended population, nor the way in which tests may be used for triage purposes as part of a wider diagnostic strategy. Informed by these findings, we developed a new framework, the 'CanTest Framework', which proposes five iterative research phases forming a clear translational pathway from new test development to health system implementation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: This framework is suitable for testing in low prevalence populations, where tests are often applied for triage testing and incorporated into a wider diagnostic strategy. It has relevance for a wide range of stakeholders including patients, policymakers, purchasers, healthcare providers and industry.

Predictors of Adverse Outcomes in Uncomplicated Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.

PURPOSE: Presentation with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in primary care is common. The aim of this study was to help clinicians treat patients presenting with LRTI in primary care by identifying those at risk of serious adverse outcomes (death, admission, late-onset pneumonia). METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of patients presenting with LRTI symptoms, patient characteristics and clinical findings were recorded and adverse events identified over 30 days by chart review. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified predictors of adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Participants were recruited from 522 UK practices in 2009-2013. The analysis was restricted to the 28,846 adult patients not referred immediately to the hospital. Serious adverse outcomes occurred in 325/28,846 (1.1%). Eight factors were independently predictive; these characterized symptom severity (absence of coryza, fever, chest pain, and clinician-assessed severity), patient vulnerability (age >65 years, comorbidity), and physiological impact (oxygen saturation <95%, low blood pressure). In aggregate, the 8 features had moderate predictive value (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.71, 95% CI, 0.68-0.74); the 4% of patients with ≥5 features had an approximately 1 in 17 (5.7%) risk of serious adverse outcomes, the 35% with 3 or 4 features had an intermediate risk (1 in 50, 2.0%), and the 61% with ≤2 features had a low (1 in 200, 0.5%) risk. CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice most patients presenting with LRTI in primary care can be identified as at intermediate or low risk of serious outcome.

MRI Identification of the Osseous Extent of Pediatric Bone Sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: The quantitative accuracy of MRI in predicting the intraosseous extent of primary sarcoma of bone has not been definitively confirmed, although MRI is widely accepted as an accurate tool to plan limb salvage resections. Because inaccuracies in MRI determination of tumor extent could affect the ability of a tumor surgeon to achieve negative margins and avoid local recurrence, we thought it important to assess the accuracy of MR-determined tumor extent to the actual extent observed pathologically from resected specimens in pediatric patients treated for primary sarcomas of bone. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the quantitative pathologic bony margin correlate with that measured on preoperative MRI? (2) Are T1- or T2-weighted MRIs most accurate in determining a margin? (3) Is there a difference in predicting tumor extent between MRI obtained before or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and which is most accurate? METHODS: We retrospectively studied a population of 211 potentially eligible patients who were treated with limb salvage surgery between August 1999 and July 2015 by a single surgeon at a single institution for primary sarcoma of bone. Of 131 patients (62%) with disease involving the femur or tibia, 107 (51%) were classified with Ewing's sarcoma or osteosarcoma. Records were available for review in our online database for 79 eligible patients (37%). Twenty-six patients (12%) were excluded because of insufficient or unavailable clinical or pathology data and 17 patients (8%) were excluded as a result of inadequate or incomplete MR imaging, leaving 55 eligible participants (26%) in the final cohort. The length of the resected specimen was superimposed on preresection MRI sequences to compare the margin measured by MRI with the margin measured by histopathology. Arithmetic mean differences and Pearson r correlations were used to assess quantitative accuracy (size of the margin). RESULTS: All MR imaging types were positively associated with final histopathologic margin. T1-weighted MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and final histopathologic margin had the strongest positive correlation of all MR imaging and time point comparisons (r = 0.846, p < 0.001). Mean differences existed between the normal marrow margin on T1-weighted MRI before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (t = 8.363; mean, 18.883 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.327-23.441; p < 0.001), T2-weighted MRI before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (t = 8.194; mean, 17.204 mm; 95% CI, 12.970-21.439; p < 0.001), T1-weighted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (t = 10.808; mean, 22.178 mm; 95% CI, 18.042-26.313; p < 0.001), T2-weighted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (t = 10.702; mean, 20.778 mm; 95% CI, 16.865-24.691; p < 0.001), and the final histopathologic margin. T1-weighted MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with the final histopathologic margin had the smallest mean difference in MRI-measured versus histopathologic margin size (mean, 5.9 mm; SD = 4.5 mm). CONCLUSIONS: T1 MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy exhibited the strongest positive correlation and smallest mean difference compared with histopathologic margin. When planning surgical resections based on MRI obtained after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, for safety, one should account for a potential difference between the apparent margin of a tumor on an MRI and the actual pathologic margin of that tumor of up to 1 cm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Benchmarking the Energy Intensity of Small Water Resource Recovery Facilities.

To enable small communities to benchmark the energy efficiency of their water resource recovery facilities (also known as wastewater treatment facilities), multiple linear regression models of electric and overall energy intensity (kWh/m3) were created using data from Nebraska and Pennsylvania. Key variables found to be significant include: facility type, supplemental energy usage for sludge treatment, average flow, percent design flow, climate controlled floor area, effluent NH3-N, and influent CBOD5. The results show that energy use models for small systems differ from those for large facilities and that regulatory changes can affect energy usage. Step changes in the data for facilities that changed operators highlight the importance of operational decisions on energy efficiency for small facilities serving fewer than 10,000 people. Differences were observed between the models of data from specific states. Although these models may not include all factors that account for variability in energy use, they can provide a reference benchmark for small WRRFs.

Predictors of pneumonia in lower respiratory tract infections: 3C prospective cough complication cohort study.

The aim was to aid diagnosis of pneumonia in those presenting with lower respiratory tract symptoms in routine primary care.A cohort of 28 883 adult patients with acute cough attributed to lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) was recruited from 5222 UK practices in 2009-13. Symptoms, signs and treatment were recorded at presentation and subsequent events followed-up for 30 days by chart review. The predictive value of patient characteristics, presenting symptoms and clinical findings for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the first 7 days was established.Of the 720 out of 28 883 (2.5.%) radiographed within 1 week of the index consultation, 115 (16.0%; 0.40% of 28 883) were assigned a definite or probable pneumonia diagnosis. The significant independent predictors of radiograph-confirmed pneumonia were temperature >37.8°C (RR 2.6; 95% CI 1.5-4.8), crackles on auscultation (RR 1.8; 1.1-3.0), oxygen saturation <95% (RR 1.7; 1.0-3.1) and pulse >100·min-1 (RR 1.9; 1.1-3.2). Most patients with pneumonia (99/115, 86.1%) exhibited at least one of these four clinical signs; the positive predictive value of having at least one of these signs was 20.2% (95% CI 17.3-23.1).In routine practice, radiograph-confirmed pneumonia as a short-term complication of LRTI is very uncommon (one in 270). Pulse oximetry may aid the diagnosis of pneumonia in this setting.

Short-course versus long-course oral antibiotic treatment for infections treated in outpatient settings: a review of systematic reviews.

Purpose: To summarize the evidence comparing the effectiveness of short and long courses of oral antibiotics for infections treated in outpatient settings. Methods: We identified systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials for children and adults with bacterial infections treated in outpatient settings from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and The Database of Review of Effects. Data were extracted on the primary outcome of clinical resolution and secondary outcomes. Results: We identified 30 potential reviews, and included 9. There was no difference in the clinical cure for children treated with short or long course antibiotics for Group A streptococcal tonsillopharyngitis (OR 1.03, 95% CI:0.97, 1.11); community acquired pneumonia (RR 0.99, 95% CI:0.97, 1.01); acute otitis media [<2 years old OR: 1.09 (95% CI:0.76, 1.57); ≥2 years old OR: 0.85 (95% CI:0.60, 1.21)]; or urinary tract infection (RR 1.06, 95% CI:0.64, 1.76). There was no difference in the clinical cure for adults treated with short or long course antibiotics for acute bacterial sinusitis (RR 0.95, 95% CI:0.81, 1.21); uncomplicated cystitis in non-pregnant women (RR 1.10, 95% CI:0.96, 1.25), or elderly women (RR: 0.98, 95% CI:0.62, 1.54); acute pyelonephritis (RR 1.03, 95% CI:0.80, 1.32); or community acquired pneumonia (RR: 0.96, 95% CI:0.74, 1.26). We found inadequate evidence about the effect on antibiotic resistance. Conclusions: This overview of systematic reviews has identified good quality evidence that short course antibiotics are as effective as longer courses for most common infections managed in ambulatory care. The impact on antibiotic resistance and associated treatment failure requires further study.

Probability of Undiagnosed Obstructive Sleep Apnea Does Not Correlate With Adverse Pulmonary Events nor Length of Stay in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Using Intrathecal Opioid.

BACKGROUND: Recent emphasis on bundled payments and outcomes tracking has increased the focus on preoperative optimization in patients undergoing elective lower extremity arthroplasty. Since patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have an increased risk of adverse perioperative pulmonary events, screening for undiagnosed OSA is sometimes included as part of preoperative risk assessment. However, there are limited data regarding quantification of OSA risk in lower extremity arthroplasty patients, and little is known about the utility of quantitative OSA screening and the risk of pulmonary complications in hip and knee arthroplasty patients who receive intrathecal morphine anesthetic. METHODS: A retrospective review of 990 patients at a tertiary care, urban academic medical center who underwent lower extremity arthroplasty with a multimodal pain regimen including intrathecal morphine anesthesia, comparing the rate of pulmonary complications and length of stay between patients previously diagnosed with OSA and those identified as low, moderate, and high risk of undiagnosed OSA established by screening with the STOP-BANG questionnaire in the preoperative setting. RESULTS: Using logistic regression and adjusting for age, gender, and body mass index, the results suggested the rate of complications was not different across the sleep apnea risk groups (P = .4024). In addition, linear regression suggested length of stay did not differ significantly by sleep apnea risk group (P = .2823). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving intrathecal morphine as part of a multimodal pain regimen undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty, neither risk of adverse pulmonary events nor length of stay appeared to correlate with preoperative risk of undiagnosed OSA.

Point-of-care testing in UK primary care: a survey to establish clinical needs.

BACKGROUND: A number of point-of-care diagnostic tests are commercially available in the UK, however, not much is known regarding GPs' desire for these tests or the clinical areas of interest. OBJECTIVE: We sought to establish for which conditions point-of-care tests (POCTs) would be most helpful to UK GPs for diagnosis, reduction of referrals, and monitoring of chronic conditions. METHODS: A total of 1635 regionally representative GPs were invited to complete an online cross-sectional survey between 31 September and 16 October 2012. RESULTS: A total of 1109 (68%) GPs responded to the survey. The most frequently cited conditions were urinary tract infections for diagnosis (47% of respondents), pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis for referral reduction (47%) and international normalized ratio/anticoagulation for monitoring (49%). CONCLUSIONS: This survey has identified the conditions for which UK GPs would find POCTs most helpful. Comments by respondents suggest that quite radical system-level adjustments will be required to allow primary care clinicians to capitalize on the potential benefits of POCTs.

Corticosteroids for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a frequent illness, which, although benign and self limiting, results in many consultations to primary care and considerable loss of school or work days. Current symptomatic treatments have limited benefit. Corticosteroids are an effective treatment in other upper respiratory tract infections and their anti-inflammatory effects may also be beneficial in the common cold. This updated review has included one additional study. OBJECTIVES: To compare corticosteroids versus usual care for the common cold on measures of symptom resolution and improvement in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 4), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (2015, Issue 2), NHS Health Economics Database (2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to May week 3, 2015) and EMBASE (January 2010 to May 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials comparing corticosteroids to placebo or to standard clinical management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We were unable to perform meta-analysis and instead present a narrative description of the available evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (353 participants). Two trials compared intranasal corticosteroids to placebo and one trial compared intranasal corticosteroids to usual care; no trials studied oral corticosteroids. In the two placebo-controlled trials, no benefit of intranasal corticosteroids was demonstrated for duration or severity of symptoms. The risk of bias overall was low or unclear in these two trials. In a trial of 54 participants, the mean number of symptomatic days was 10.3 in the placebo group, compared to 10.7 in those using intranasal corticosteroids (P value = 0.72). A second trial of 199 participants reported no significant differences in the duration of symptoms. The single-blind trial in children aged two to 14 years, who were also receiving oral antibiotics, had inadequate reporting of outcome measures regarding symptom resolution. The overall risk of bias was high for this trial. Mean symptom severity scores were significantly lower in the group receiving intranasal steroids in addition to oral amoxicillin. One placebo-controlled trial reported the presence of rhinovirus in nasal aspirates and found no differences. Only one of the three trials reported on adverse events; no differences were found. Two trials reported secondary bacterial infections (one case of sinusitis, one case of acute otitis media; both in the corticosteroid groups). A lack of comparable outcome measures meant that we were unable to combine the data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the use of intranasal corticosteroids for symptomatic relief from the common cold. However, there were only three trials, one of which was very poor quality, and there was limited statistical power overall. Further large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults and children are required to answer this question.