Search

Objective To quantify differences in hospital-associated costs, and accompanying travel costs and productivity losses, before and after withdrawing TNF-α inhibitors (TNFi) in JIA patients. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from electronic medical records of paediatric JIA patients treated with TNFi, which were immediately discontinued, spaced (increased treatment interval) or tapered (reduced subsequent doses). Costs of hospital-associated resource use (consultations, medication, radiology procedures, laboratory testing, procedures under general anaesthesia, hospitalization) and associated travel costs and productivity losses were quantified during clinically inactive disease until TNFi withdrawal (pre-withdrawal period) and compared with costs during the first and second year after withdrawal initiation (first and second year post-withdrawal). Results Fifty-six patients were included of whom 26 immediately discontinued TNFi, 30 spaced and zero tapered. Mean annual costs were €9165/patient on active treatment (pre-withdrawal) and decreased significantly to €5063/patient (−44.8%) and €6569/patient (−28.3%) in the first and second year post-withdrawal, respectively (P  < 0.05). Of these total annual costs, travel costs plus productivity losses were €834/patient, €1180/patient, and €1320/patient in the three periods respectively. Medication comprised 80.7%, 61.5% and 72.4% of total annual costs in the pre-withdrawal, first and second year post-withdrawal period, respectively. Conclusion In the first two years after initiating withdrawal, the total annual costs were decreased compared with the pre-withdrawal period. However, cost reductions were lower in the second year compared with the first year post-withdrawal, primarily due to restarting or intensifying biologics. To support biologic withdrawal decisions, future research should assess the full long-term societal cost impacts, and include all biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing concern about lack of scientific rigor and transparent reporting across many preclinical fields of biological research. Poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting can result in conscious or unconscious experimental bias, producing results that are not replicable. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a consensus meeting of the Preclinical Pain Research Consortium for Investigating Safety and Efficacy (PPRECISE) Working Group. International participants from universities, funding agencies, government agencies, industry, and a patient advocacy organization attended. Reduction of publication bias, increasing the ability of others to faithfully repeat experimental methods, and increased transparency of data reporting were specifically discussed. Parameters deemed essential to increase confidence in the published literature were clear, specific reporting of an a priori hypothesis and definition of primary outcome measure. Power calculations and whether measurement of minimal meaningful effect size to determine these should be a core component of the preclinical research effort provoked considerable discussion, with many but not all agreeing. Greater transparency of reporting should be driven by scientists, journal editors, reviewers, and grant funders. The conduct of high-quality science that is fully reported should not preclude novelty and innovation in preclinical pain research, and indeed, any efforts that curtail such innovation would be misguided. We believe that to achieve the goal of finding effective new treatments for patients with pain, the pain field needs to deal with these challenging issues.

Objective: The Symposium on Animal Systematic Reviews held 24 May 2022, sought to bring organisations working on animal literature searching and systematic reviews together into the same virtual space for introductions and discussion. Background: Groups working on animal research synthesis are often siloed into preclinical, veterinary, and One Health settings. This symposium sought to define commonalities and differences in methodologies, resources, and philosophies and to discuss future needs. Methods: The 3-hour virtual symposium for veterinarians, researchers, and information specialists began with introductions by panelists from organisations involved in searching the literature for animal studies and conducting systematic reviews. This was followed by a panel discussion and question and answer period. Results: Panelists identified a need to ensure planning and accurate description of primary animal studies as a precursor to quality systematic reviews. They acknowledged and discussed differences in evidence synthesis expectations and tools based on the type of review, the types of studies available on the topic, and the focus on preclinical, veterinary, or One Health topics. Conclusion: The need to increase the speed and quality of evidence reviews, and to automate updates, requires investing in the development of both skilled teams and platforms. The symposium provided a chance to identify existing resources, define challenges, and note gaps unique to systematic reviews of animal studies. Application: This symposium acts as a baseline for ongoing discussions centred on improving the culture and pipeline for evidence syntheses of animal studies that inform decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers bein g unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first high light the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experi mental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy of brief treatments for media-recruited pathological gamblers was tested in a randomized clinical trial design (N = 314). Two self-directed motivational interventions were compared with a 6-week waiting list control and a workbook only control. Brief motivational treatment involved a telephone motivational interview and a mailed self-help workbook. Brief motivational booster treatment involved a telephone motivational interview, a workbook, and 6 booster telephone calls over a 9-month period. Primary outcomes were gambling frequency and dollar losses. As hypothesized, brief and brief booster treatment participants reported less gambling at 6 weeks than those assigned to the control groups. Brief and brief booster treatment participants gambled significantly less often over the first 6 months of the follow-up than workbook only participants. However, the workbook only participants were as likely to have significantly reduced their losses over the year and to have not met criteria for pathological gambling. Contrary to the hypothesis, participants in the brief booster treatment group showed no greater improvement than brief treatment participants. These results provide further support for the value of brief motivational treatments for pathological gambling. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.)

Objective To investigate medication prescription patterns among children with JIA, including duration, sequence and reasons for medication discontinuation. Methods This study is a single-centre, retrospective analysis of prospective data from the electronic medical records of JIA patients receiving systemic therapy aged 0–18 years between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2019. Patient characteristics (age, gender, JIA subtype) and medication prescriptions were extracted and analysed using descriptive statistics, Sankey diagrams and Kaplan–Meier survival methods. Results Over a median of 4.2 years follow-up, the 20 different medicines analysed were prescribed as monotherapy (n  = 15) or combination therapy (n  = 48 unique combinations) among 236 patients. In non-systemic JIA, synthetic DMARDs were prescribed to almost all patients (99.5%), and always included MTX. In contrast, 43.9% of non-systemic JIA patients received a biologic DMARD (mostly adalimumab or etanercept), ranging from 30.9% for oligoarticular persistent ANA-positive JIA, to 90.9% for polyarticular RF-positive JIA. Among systemic JIA, 91.7% received a biologic DMARD (always including anakinra). When analysing medication prescriptions according to their class, 32.6% involved combination therapy. In 56.8% of patients, subsequent treatment lines were initiated after unsuccessful first-line treatment, resulting in 68 unique sequences. Remission was the most common reason for DMARD discontinuation (44.7%), followed by adverse events (28.9%) and ineffectiveness (22.1%). Conclusion This paper reveals the complexity of pharmacological treatment in JIA, as indicated by: the variety of mono- and combination therapies prescribed, substantial variation in medication prescriptions between subtypes, most patients receiving two or more treatment lines, and the large number of unique treatment sequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis management aims to reduce pain and improve function. Many factors affect whether patients follow recommended strategies. Locus of control refers to individual beliefs around who and what influences health. Locus of control is related to the treatment strategies patients prefer. Currently, no studies explore locus of control in non‐surgical management of osteoarthritis. Objectives: To explore patients' beliefs about the influences on their osteoarthritis symptoms and disease progression. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with individuals experiencing self‐reported hip and/or knee osteoarthritis who had at least one joint that had not undergone replacement surgery. We used a qualitative description approach and the Braun and Clarke method for thematic analysis. Participants' locus of control classifications—internal, chance, doctors, or other people—were based on the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales Form C score. Results: Locus of control was discussed in relation to aetiology, progression, and symptoms. Participants' opinions varied on whether their osteoarthritis progression could be influenced. 46% of participants attributed control to other people. Most participants believed that a previous injury had caused their osteoarthritis and that both themselves and others had some influence over their osteoarthritis symptoms, regardless of their locus of control classification. Conclusion: This research highlights the need for education about: the aetiology of osteoarthritis, the link between management and progression, and patient management of osteoarthritis. Further research is required to discern why expected patterns were not observed between participants' beliefs and locus of control classifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]