Search

Purpose: This study aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (RIV + ASA) versus aspirin (ASA) alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD)., Methods: A systematic review was conducted using leading databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science core collection. The search was carried out up to June 25, 2024, focusing on identifying full economic evaluation studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of RIV + ASA versus ASA alone in patients with stable cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed utilizing the validated Quality of Health Economics Studies (QHES) checklist. Subsequently, a qualitative analysis was performed to synthesize the collected data. We converted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) into the equivalent amount in US dollars for the year 2024., Results: Out of 315 identified articles, 11 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. RIV + ASA was generally found to be cost-effective, with ICERs falling within acceptable willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. However, substantial variation in ICERs was observed across studies due to differences in healthcare systems, drug pricing, and WTP thresholds. In these studies, ICERs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2024 US dollars) US$4939 to $29,162 for all patients, $10,385 to $85,394 for CAD, and $1013 to $40,244 for PAD in different studies. RIV + ASA was more cost-effective in high-risk subgroups, such as patients with PAD. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included mortality rates, the cost of rivaroxaban, and utility scores., Conclusions: RIV + ASA appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with CAD or PAD or both. Future research should address geographical biases, consider societal perspectives, and explore alternative treatment options to optimize resource allocation and improve patient outcomes in the management of CVDs. Future research should also consider evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternative new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to provide a broader perspective on treatment options for CVD., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR.IUMS.REC.1402.1051). Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

This scoping review focuses on the evolution of pre-analytical errors (PAEs) in medical laboratories, a critical area with significant implications for patient care, healthcare costs, hospital length of stay, and operational efficiency. The Covidence Review tool was used to formulate the keywords, and then a comprehensive literature search was performed using several databases, importing the search results directly into Covidence (n=379). Title, abstract screening, duplicate removal, and full-text screening were done. The retrieved studies (n=232) were scanned for eligibility (n=228) and included in the review (n=83), and the results were summarised in a PRISMA flow chart. The review highlights the role of healthcare professionals in preventing PAEs in specimen collection and processing, as well as analyses. The review also discusses the use and advancements of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in reducing PAEs and identifies inadequacies in standard definitions, measurement units, and education strategies. It demonstrates the need for further research to ensure model validation, address the regulatory validation of Risk Probability Indexation (RPI) models and consider regulatory, safety, and privacy concerns. The review suggests that comprehensive studies on the effectiveness of AI and software platforms in real-world settings and their implementation in healthcare are lacking, presenting opportunities for further research to advance patient care and improve the management of PAEs., (© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Purpose: The Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program (PSTP) was implemented to overcome well-documented challenges in training and retaining physician-scientists by providing physician-scientist pathway training for residents and clinical fellows. The program's core tenets include monthly seminars, individualized feedback on project proposals, access to mentors, and institutional funding opportunities. This study evaluated the effectiveness and outcomes of the PTSP and provides a framework for replication., Method: A query of institutional demographic data and bibliometric variables of the PSTP participants (2017-2020) at a single academic medical center was conducted in 2021. In addition, a voluntary survey collected personal and program evaluation information., Results: Of 145 PSTP scholars, 59 (41%) were women, and 41 (31%), 8 (6%), and 6 (5%) of scholars self-identified as Asian, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. Thirty-three (23%) scholars received PSTP research support or career development microgrants. Of 66 PSTP graduates, 29 (44%) remained at Johns Hopkins as clinical fellows or faculty. Of 48 PSTP graduates in a posttraining position, 42 (88%) were in academia, with the majority, 29 (76%), holding the rank of assistant professor. Fifty-nine of 140 available participants responded to the survey (42% response rate). The top-cited reason for joining the PSTP was exposure to mentors and administration (50/58 respondents, 86%), followed by seeking scholarly opportunities (37/58 respondents, 64%). Most scholars intended to continue a career as a physician-scientist., Conclusions: The PSTP provides internal research support and institutional oversight. Although establishing close mentor-mentee relationships requires individualized approaches, the PSTP provided structured academic pathways that enhanced participating scholars' ability to apply for grants and jobs. The vast majority continued their careers as physician-scientists after training. In light of the national evidence of a "leaky physician-scientist pipeline," programs such as the PSTP can be critical to entry into early academic career positions and institutional retention., (Copyright © 2024 the Association of American Medical Colleges.)