Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review.

Little is known about the methods and outcomes of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) use among high-risk medical device registries. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the utility and predictive ability of PROMs in high-risk medical device registries. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, APA PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for published literature. After searching, 4323 titles and abstracts were screened, and 262 full texts were assessed for their eligibility. Seventy-six papers from across orthopedic (n = 64), cardiac (n = 10), penile (n = 1), and hernia mesh (n = 1) device registries were identified. Studies predominantly used PROMs as an outcome measure when comparing cohorts or surgical approaches (n = 45) or to compare time points (n = 13) including pre- and postintervention. Fifteen papers considered the predictive ability of PROMs. Of these, 8 treated PROMs as an outcome, 5 treated PROMs as a risk factor through regression analysis, and 2 papers treated PROMs as both a risk factor and as an outcome. One paper described PROMs to study implant survival. To advance methods of PROM integration into clinical decision-making for medical devices, an understanding of their use in high-risk device registries is needed. This scoping review found that there is a paucity of studies using PROMs to predict long-term patient and clinical outcomes in high-risk medical device registries. Determination as to why PROMs are rarely used for predictive purposes in long-term data collection is needed if PROM data are to be considered suitable as real-world evidence for high-risk device regulatory purposes, as well as to support clinical decision-making.

Estimating the cost of visiting hospital outpatient.

Objectives: This study aims to investigate the cost incurred by people travelling to the neurology outpatient clinic of a large metropolitan hospital. As outpatients are a substantial portion of a hospital's demographic, we aimed to understand the patient experience of various commuters. Methods: We conducted an observational study collecting demographic details and travel information for how people attended the neurology clinic of Monash Medical Centre. Statistical analysis was performed using R. 165 participants were randomly selected and interviewed in-person. Data were collected via an anonymous questionnaire. The study was approved by the Monash Health Human Ethics Research Committee. Results: 155 responses were included in the analysis. Patients paid an average of $A16.64 to travel to Monash Medical Centre. Drivers paid on average $A16.70 and those taking public transport paid on average $A9.64, with the maximum cost overall being $A120.00. For patients driving to hospital, parking accounted for 60% of their travel costs. The average to Monash Medical centre was 20.82 km with the maximum being 190.88 km. Distance from hospital was correlated with a higher cost of travel (p<0.001, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient=0.48). There was also an inverse association between distance from hospital and socioeconomic status (p<0.001, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient=-0.26). Conclusion: Travelling to hospital can be a costly endeavour. Driving is the most popular form of transport, but a large portion of the cost involved is hospital parking. Further research should be conducted at other tertiary centres with larger samples.

How environmental impact is considered in economic evaluations of critical care: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Health care is a major contributor to climate change, and critical care is one of the sector's highest carbon emitters. Health economic evaluations form an important component of critical care and may be useful in identifying economically efficient and environmentally sustainable strategies. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise available literature on whether and how environmental impact is considered in health economic evaluations of critical care. METHODS: A robust scoping review methodology was used to identify studies reporting on environmental impact in health economic evaluations of critical care. We searched six academic databases to locate health economic evaluations, costing studies and life cycle assessments of critical care from 1993 to present. RESULTS: Four studies met the review's inclusion criteria. Of the 278 health economic evaluations of critical care identified, none incorporated environmental impact into their assessments. Most included studies (n = 3/4) were life cycle assessments, and the remaining study was a prospective observational study. Life cycle assessments used a combination of process-based data collection and modelling to incorporate environmental impact into their economic assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Health economic evaluations of critical care have not yet incorporated environmental impact into their assessments, and few life cycle assessments exist that are specific to critical care therapies and treatments. Guidelines and standardisation regarding environmental data collection and reporting in health care are needed to support further research in the field. In the meantime, those planning health economic evaluations should include a process-based life cycle assessment to establish key environmental impacts specific to critical care.

I know what you did last summer: a cross-sectional study of personal COVID-19 risk reduction strategies used by Victorian adults, December 2021-January 2022.

OBJECTIVE: We describe COVID-19 risk reduction strategies adopted by Victorian adults during December 2021-January 2022, a period of high COVID-19 infection and limited government mandated public health measures. METHODS: In February 2022, participants of a Victorian-based cohort study (Optimise) completed a cross-sectional survey on risk reduction behaviours during December 2021-January 2022. Regression modelling estimated the association between risk reduction and demographics. RESULTS: A total of 556 participants were included (median age 47 years; 75% women; 82% in metropolitan Melbourne). Two-thirds (61%) adopted at least one risk reduction behaviour, with uptake highest among younger participants (18-34 years; adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 1.41) and those with a chronic health condition (aRR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Participants adopted their own COVID-19 risk reduction strategies in a setting of limited government restrictions, with young people more likely to adopt a risk reduction strategy that did not limit social mobility. IMPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: A public health response to COVID-19 that focusses on promoting personal risk reduction behaviours, as opposed to mandated restrictions, could be enhanced by disseminating information on and increasing availability of effective risk reduction strategies tailored to segments of the population.

Engaging with communities to encourage adoption of a harm reduction approach to COVID-19.

Since the emergence of the Omicron variant in Australia in late 2021 there have been over 5.47 million cases and 4993 deaths, disproportionately impacting on people with social and structural disadvantage. However there has been increasing reluctance by governments to intervene to reduce the impact of COVID-19 transmission and its consequences. This commentary article provides a perspective on the support and guidance required to mitigate individuals and communities risk by using a harm reduction approach to highlight strategies that can reduce COVID-19 transmission and infection.

Modeling the cost and impact of injectable opioid agonist therapy on overdose and overdose deaths.

AIMS: Unsupervised injectable opioid agonist therapy (iOAT) may decrease the unmet treatment needs for people who inject opioids. We aimed to model whether unsupervised iOAT may be effective in reducing fatal and non-fatal overdose, and estimate the cost per life saved. METHODS: The study used a decision tree model based on Australian and international parameters for overdose risk in people who inject opioids who are: not on OAT; new/stable to methadone/buprenorphine treatment; on iOAT; or on unsupervised iOAT. We modeled scenarios of (1) current OAT only (status quo), or current OAT plus either (2) 5% supervised iOAT, (3) 5% supervised or 5.69% unsupervised iOAT (based on willingness to enroll), OR (4) 1.2% supervised and 10% unsupervised iOAT (the same cost as scenario 2). The study measured overdoses (fatal and nonfatal) and treatment costs per 10,000 people who inject opioids per annum, and cost-per deaths averted on implementation of iOAT. RESULTS: With current OAT, the study found an estimated 1655.5 (1552.7-1705.3) overdoses, 19.3 (17.9-20.3) overdose deaths and AUD 23,335,081 in treatment costs per 10,000 people per annum. Implementation of 5% enrollment in supervised iOAT costs an additional AUD 14,807,855 and showed a reduction of 122.9 (95% UI 114.2-130.5) overdoses and 2.0 (1.8-2.0) overdose deaths per 10,000 people per annum ($7,774,172 [7,283,182-8,146,989] per death averted). For the same treatment costs, additional coverage of 10% unsupervised iOAT and 1.2% supervised iOAT could be achieved, which the study estimated to prevent 269.0 (95% UI 250.0-278.7) overdoses and 4.0 (3.7-4.2) overdose deaths per 10,000 people per annum ($3,723,340 (3,385,878-3,894,379) per death averted), alongside further benefits of treatment unaccounted for in this study. CONCLUSION: An implementation scenario with greater unsupervised iOAT compared to supervised iOAT allows for an increased reduction in overdose and overdose deaths per annum at the same cost, with the additional benefit of increased treatment coverage among people who inject opioids.

Opioid agonist treatment for people who are dependent on pharmaceutical opioids.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is  very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.

Randomised trials in maternal and perinatal health in low and middle-income countries from 2010 to 2019: a systematic scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and map all trials in maternal health conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, to identify geographical and thematic trends, as well as comparing to global causes of maternal death and preidentified priority areas. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Extracted data included location, study characteristics and whether trials corresponded to causes of mortality and identified research priority topics. RESULTS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, a combined registry of trials from multiple sources. Our search identified 7269 articles, 874 of which were included for analysis. Between 2010 and 2019, maternal health trials conducted in LMICs more than doubled (50-114). Trials were conducted in 61 countries-231 trials (26.4%) were conducted in Iran. Only 225 trials (25.7%) were aligned with a cause of maternal mortality. Within these trials, pre-existing medical conditions, embolism, obstructed labour and sepsis were all under-represented when compared with number of maternal deaths globally. Large numbers of studies were conducted on priority topics such as labour and delivery, obstetric haemorrhage and antenatal care. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetes and health systems and policy-despite being high-priority topics-had relatively few trials. CONCLUSION: Despite trials conducted in LMICs increasing from 2010 to 2019, there were significant gaps in geographical distribution, alignment with causes of maternal mortality and known research priority topics. The research gaps identified provide guidance and insight for future research conduct in low-resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/QUJP5.

Does naloxone provision lead to increased substance use? A systematic review to assess if there is evidence of a 'moral hazard' associated with naloxone supply.

BACKGROUND: Take home naloxone (THN) programs have been rapidly upscaled in response to increasing opioid-related mortality. One often cited concern is that naloxone provision could be associated with increased opioid use, due to the availability of naloxone to reverse opioid overdose. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether THN provision is associated with changes in substance use by participants enrolled in THN programs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess changes in heroin or other substance use by people who use opioids following THN provision. RESULTS: Seven studies with 2578 participants were included. Of the seven studies, there were two quasi-experimental studies and five cohort studies. Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment, four studies were of moderate quality and three studies were of high quality. Of the five studies that reported on the primary outcome of heroin use, no study found evidence of increased heroin use across the study population. Five studies reported on other substance use (benzodiazepines, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamine, cannabis, prescription opioids), none of which found evidence of an increase in other substance use associated with THN provision. Four studies reported on changes in overdose frequency following THN provision: three studies reporting no change, and one study of people prescribed opioids finding a reduction in opioid-related emergency department attendances for participants who received naloxone. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that THN provision was associated with increased opioid use or overdose. Concerns that THN supply may lead to increased substance use were not supported by data from reviewed studies.

Risk of major bleeding by ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation among 488,107 people in primary care: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic medications (antiplatelets and anticoagulants) reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but with the disadvantage of increasing bleeding risk. Ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation are independent predictors of major bleeds among patients without CVD, but it is unclear whether they are also predictors of major bleeds among patients with CVD or atrial fibrillation (AF) after adjustment for clinical variables. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of 488,107 people in New Zealand Primary Care (including 64,420 Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand) aged 30-79 years who had their CVD risk assessed between 2007 and 2016. Participants were divided into three mutually exclusive subgroups: (1) AF with or without CVD (n = 15,212), (2) CVD and no AF (n = 43,790), (3) no CVD or AF (n = 429,105). Adjusted hazards ratios (adjHRs) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards models predicting major bleeding risk for each of the three subgroups to determine whether ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation are independent predictors of major bleeds in different cardiovascular risk groups. RESULTS: In all three subgroups (AF, CVD, no CVD/AF), Maori (adjHR 1.63 [1.39-1.91], 1.24 [1.09-1.42], 1.57 [95% CI 1.45-1.70], respectively), Pacific people (adjHR 1.90 [1.58-2.28], 1.30 [1.12-1.51], 1.62 [95% CI 1.49-1.75], respectively) and Chinese people (adjHR 1.53 [1.08-2.16], 1.15 [0.90-1.47], 1.13 [95% CI 1.01-1.26], respectively) were at increased risk of a major bleed compared to Europeans, although for Chinese people the effect did not reach statistical significance in the CVD subgroup. Compared to Europeans, Maori and Pacific peoples were generally at increased risk of all bleed types (gastrointestinal, intracranial and other bleeds). An increased risk of intracranial bleeds was observed among Chinese and Other Asian people and, in the CVD and no CVD/AF subgroups, among Indian people. Increasing socioeconomic deprivation was also associated with increased risk of a major bleed in all three subgroups (adjHR 1.07 [1.02-1.12], 1.07 [1.03-1.10], 1.10 [95% CI 1.08-1.12], respectively, for each increase in socioeconomic deprivation quintile). CONCLUSION: Ethnicity and socioeconomic status should be considered in bleeding risk assessments to guide the use of antithrombotic medication for the management of AF and CVD.

Changes in emergency department blood product use for major paediatric trauma following the implementation of a major haemorrhage protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Fixed ratio blood product administration may improve outcomes in trauma patients with massive blood loss. The present study aimed to describe the impact of a major haemorrhage protocol (MHP) on the ratio of blood products administered for paediatric major trauma. METHODS: Retrospective observational study in a state-designated paediatric major trauma centre in Melbourne, Australia. Children with major trauma who received blood products in the ED were identified from a hospital trauma registry. Blood product ratios before, during and after implementation of a hospital MHP were compared in consecutive 2 year blocks. RESULTS: Over a 6 year period, 767 major trauma patients were identified, of whom 47 received blood products in the ED and were included in the analysis; 14 pre-MHP implementation, 24 during-MHP implementation and nine post-MHP implementation. No patients received blood products at a ratio of 1:1:1 for red blood cells:fresh frozen plasma:platelets, respectively, during any time period. In this cohort of predominantly blunt trauma, blood products were infrequently administered in the ED because of the low prevalence of massive blood loss. Coagulopathy and hypofibrinogenaemia were commonly observed, nearly half of included patients were managed operatively and one quarter did not survive their injuries. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a MHP did not change the ratio of blood product administration in this cohort of patients because of the infrequency of massive blood loss. Future studies may focus on the impact of treating coagulopathy and hypofibrinogenaemia on patient-centred outcomes.

Febrile children in the Emergency Department: Frequency and predictors of poor outcome.

AIM: To evaluate the frequency and predictors of poor outcome in febrile children presenting to the Emergency Department. METHODS: Retrospective observational study from the Emergency Department of The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. All children with presenting complaint of fever or triage temperature >38°C over a 6-month period were included. Poor outcome was defined as: new organ dysfunction or the requirement for organ support therapy (inotrope infusion, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy and extra-corporeal life support). Predictors evaluated were as follows: initial vital signs, blood tests and clinical scores. Odds ratio, sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve were calculated for each predictor variable. RESULTS: Between Jan-June 2019, 6217 children met inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven (0.4%) developed new organ dysfunction, 10 (0.2%) required organ support therapy (inotrope infusion in 5, mechanical ventilation in 6, renal replacement therapy in 1, extra-corporeal life support in 1). Odds of new organ dysfunction, requirement for inotropic support and mechanical ventilation were higher with abnormal initial vital signs, blood tests and clinical scores, though overall test characteristics were poor due to infrequency. CONCLUSION: Poor outcomes were uncommon among febrile children presenting to the Emergency Department. Vital signs, blood tests and clinical scores were poor predictors.

Community pharmacy naloxone supply, before and after rescheduling as an over-the-counter drug: sales and prescriptions data, 2014-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the community pharmacy supply of naloxone by supply type - individual prescription, prescriber bag, and non-dispensed (supplied over the counter or expired) - during 2014-2018; to examine whether the 2016 rescheduling of naloxone as an over-the-counter drug influenced non-dispensed naloxone supply volume. DESIGN, SETTING: Analysis of monthly naloxone prescriptions (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) and sales data (IQVIA), 2014-2018, for Australia and by state and territory; time series analysis of non-dispensed naloxone supply to assess effect of rescheduling on naloxone supply. MAJOR OUTCOMES: Total naloxone supply to community pharmacies; prescribed and non-dispensed naloxone supply. RESULTS: During 2014-2018, 372 351 400 µg units of naloxone were sold to community pharmacies: non-dispensed naloxone accounted for 205 866.5 units (55.3%), prescriber bags for 155 841 units (41.8%), and individual prescriptions for 10 643.5 units (2.9%). Population-adjusted national naloxone sales to community pharmacies increased between 2014 and 2018 (per year: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22). This increase was primarily attributable to increased volumes of prescriber bag naloxone (IRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78) and, to a lesser extent, increased individual prescription supply (IRR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.85-2.26). Non-dispensed naloxone supply volume was unchanged at the national level (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01); changes in non-dispensed supply immediately following rescheduling and subsequently were not statistically significant in time series analyses for most jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Total naloxone supply to community pharmacies in Australia increased between 2014 and 2018, but rescheduling that enabled over-the-counter access did not significantly influence the volume of non-dispensed naloxone.