Body Composition in Anti-Obesity Medication Trials-Beyond Scales.

This Viewpoint contends that focusing only on weight loss as the primary weight medication end point is an inaccurate measure of medication efficacy for both patients and clinicians.

Opioid Usage in Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients with Nonsurgical, Early Surgical, and Late Surgical Treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To assess opioid usage in surgical and nonsurgical patients with lumbar disc herniation receiving different treatments and timing of treatments. METHODS: Individuals with newly diagnosed lumbar intervertebral disc herniation without myelopathy were queried from a health claims database. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts: nonsurgical, early surgery, and late surgery. Early surgery cohort patients underwent surgery within 30 days postdiagnosis; late surgery cohort patients had surgery after 30 days but before 1 year postdiagnosis. The index date was defined as the diagnosis date for nonsurgical patients and the initial surgery date for surgical patients. The primary outcome was the average daily opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed. Additional outcomes included percentage of opioid-using patients and cumulative opioid burden. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 573,082 patients: 533,226 patients received nonsurgical treatments, 22,312 patients received early surgery, and 17,544 patients received late surgery. Both surgical cohorts experienced a postsurgical increase in opioid usage, which then sharply declined and gradually plateaued, with daily opioid MME consistently lower in the early versus late surgery cohort. The early surgery cohort also consistently had a lower prevalence of opioid-using patients than the late surgery cohort. Patients receiving nonsurgical treatment demonstrated the highest 1-year post index cumulative opioid burden, and the early surgery cohort consistently had lower cumulative opioid MME than the late surgery cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Early surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation is associated with lower long-term average daily MME, incidence of opioid use, and 1-year cumulative MME burden compared with nonsurgical and late surgery treatment approaches.

Using Ethereum Smart Contracts to Store and Share COVID-19 Patient Data.

Introduction The emergence and rapid spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have revealed the limitations in current healthcare systems to handle patient records securely and transparently, and novel protocols are required to address these shortcomings. An attractive option is the use of Ethereum smart contracts to secure the storage of medical records and concomitant data logs. Ethereum is an open-source platform that can be used to construct smart contracts, which are collections of code that allow transactions under certain parameters and are self-executable. Methods The present study developed a proof-of-concept smart contract that stores COVID-19 patient data such as the patient identifier (ID), variant, chest CT grade, and significant comorbidities. A sample, fictitious patient data for the purpose of testing was configured to a private network. A smart contract was created in the Ethereum state and tested by measuring the time to insert and query patient data. Results Testing with a private, Proof of Authority (PoA) network required only 191 milliseconds and 890 MB of memory per insertion to insert 50 records while inserting 350 records required 674 milliseconds and similar memory per insertion, as memory per insertion was nearly constant with the increasing number of records inserted. Retrieving required 912 MB for a query involving all three fields and no wildcards in a 350-record database. Only 883 MB was needed to procure a similar observation from a 50-record database. Conclusion This study exemplifies the use of smart contracts for efficient retrieval/insertion of COVID-19 patient data and provides a case use of secure and efficient data logging for sensitive COVID-19 data.

Microbial Profile and Clinical Outcomes of Fungal Keratitis at a Single-Center Tertiary Care Hospital.

PURPOSE: To evaluate baseline characteristics, microbiological spectrum, management, and outcomes of patients with culture-proven fungal keratitis. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients with culture-proven fungal keratitis seen over 6 years at a tertiary referral center. RESULTS: The present study included 62 eyes from 62 patients. Infection with filamentous organisms was more common than with yeast (66.1% vs 27.4%). The most common filamentous organisms were Fusarium (17.7%) and Aspergillus (16.1%), while the most common yeast was Candida (24.2%). The main predisposing factor for filamentous keratitis was contact lens use. Yeast keratitis is most associated with an immunocompromised host and ocular surface disease. Corneal perforation (20.0%) and surgical interventions (46.8%) were common, with 27.4% of eyes requiring at least one penetrating keratoplasty. Filamentous keratitis is more likely than yeast keratitis to require urgent penetrating keratoplasty or enucleation and to receive more than one topical and systemic antifungal agent. Visual outcomes were poor with nearly half of the eyes remaining at 20/200 or worse upon resolution of infection. Worse visual outcomes were associated with poor vision at presentation and a history of ocular surface disease. Antifungal susceptibility testing was not routinely performed, but it demonstrated a relatively high minimum inhibitory concentration for at least one antifungal drug in 90% of cases when performed (16.1%) and guided the direction of treatment for 80% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Fungal keratitis is visually devastating. Infections with filamentous fungi predominated over yeast and were generally treated more aggressively both medically and surgically. Filamentous and yeast keratitis had similar durations of infections and visual outcomes. Antifungal susceptibility testing influenced treatment in 80% of cases in which it was performed.

A Comprehensive Overview of Antibiotic Selection and the Factors Affecting It.

In order to prescribe an antibiotic, a physician must go through a series of decision-making processes that involve both the drug and the host. In this review article, we outline exactly what those decision-making processes are and some of their limitations. Before a medication can be prescribed, a physician has to determine if the antibiotic works against the host pathogen. To do this, basic science techniques are employed including phenotypic methods such as broth dilution methods, Kirby-Bauer susceptibility testing, Epsilometer test (E-test), and genotypic methods such as the new and upcoming automated tests. After determining if a drug has potential to work, the physician must consider the drug's mechanism of action in order to determine a dosing regimen. Some groups of drugs should be administered at high concentrations infrequently, others should be given more frequently in smaller doses, and others lie somewhere between this spectrum. Finally, external factors such as the patient's age, especially for pediatrics and geriatrics patients, need to be considered, as these groups have the highest health care burden but are among the most vulnerable when it comes to the side effects of drugs.

Opioid Use Disorder: Treatments and Barriers.

Over the last decade, opioid use around the world has risen considerably and is projected to continue to rise at an alarming rate. As opioid use rises, so too does the number of people who suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD) and opioid overdose-related deaths. As science and medicine progresses, new medications and therapies have arisen in order to help treat patients suffering from addiction. Treatment can be split into two main domains: pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Buprenorphine and methadone, currently the most prescribed medications for patients suffering from OUD, have been shown to be extremely effective in clinical trials but have significant real-world limitations. Geographical disparities between various locations, physician stigma with prescribing these medications, and training required to prescribe medication can make access to these treatments difficult for patients. Non-pharmacological interventions have also been shown to help with limited efficacy when combined with pharmacological interventions. However, the time and resources required to implement these strategies may be a difficult barrier to overcome. In this review, we assess pharmacological interventions, non-pharmacological treatments, examine barriers to treatment for patients, and propose solutions to bypass these barriers.

Preresidency Publication Productivity of U.S. Neurosurgery Interns.

BACKGROUND: Research experience is believed to be an important component of the neurosurgery residency application process. One measure of research productivity is publication volume. The preresidency publication volume of U.S. neurosurgery interns and any potential association between applicant publication volume and the match results of top-ranked residency programs have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to characterize the preresidency publication volume of U.S. neurosurgery residents in the 2018-2019 intern class using the Scopus database. METHODS: For each intern, we recorded the total number of publications, total number of first or last author publications, total number of neuroscience-related publications, mean number of citations per publication, and mean impact factor of the journal per publication. Preresidency publication volumes of interns at the top-25 programs (based on a composite ranking score according to 4 different ranking metrics) were compared with those at all other programs. RESULTS: We found that 82% of neurosurgery interns included in the analysis (190 interns from 95 programs) had at least 1 publication. The average number of publications per intern among all programs was 6 ± 0.63 (mean ± standard error of the mean). We also found that interns at top-25 neurosurgery residency programs tended to have a higher number of publications (8.3 ± 1.2 vs. 4.8 ± 0.7, P = 0.0137), number of neuroscience-related publications (6.8 ± 1.1 vs. 4.1 ± 0.7, P = 0.0419), and mean number of citations per publication (9.8 ± 1.7 vs. 5.7 ± 0.8, P = 0.0267) compared with interns at all other programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a general estimate of the preresidency publication volume of U.S. neurosurgery interns and suggest a potential association between publication volume and matching in the top-25 neurosurgery residency programs.